No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.
Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.
Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.
That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?
No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.
Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.
That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?
Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.
Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.
In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.
If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Zhivago wrote:
It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...
Aging refers to the dealkylation of the cholinesterase, not the nerve agent.
Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 9.56.45 AM.png
Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.
Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.
Donny osmond wrote:
Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.
That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?
Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.
Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.
In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.
If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?
""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian
Aging refers to the dealkylation of the cholinesterase, not the nerve agent.
Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 9.56.45 AM.png
Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.
Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.
That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.
That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?
Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.
Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.
In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.
If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?
""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian
No, you were expressly and explicitly talking about the uk government
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Zhivago wrote:
Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.
Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.
That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.
A fair point.
It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?
Zhivago wrote:
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.
That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.
A fair point.
It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?
Zhivago wrote:
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.
That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.
A fair point.
It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?
It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.
So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.
If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.
That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.
That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?
Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.
Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.
In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.
If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?
""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian
Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?
Donny osmond wrote:Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.
Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.
In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.
If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?
""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian
Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?
As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.
That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.
At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.
I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.
Zhivago wrote:
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?
""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian
Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?
As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.
That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.
At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.
I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.
No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.
All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.
Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.
So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.
A fair point.
It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?
It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.
So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.
If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.
That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.
Still enough to incapacitate though, but you're right about the slow rate of incapacitation. Certainly indicates either a botched job or purposely sub lethal.
That is assuming that it was indeed on the door though... just another thing we've been told and can't know for sure.
Last edited by Zhivago on Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sandydragon wrote:
Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?
As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.
That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.
At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.
I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.
No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.
All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.
Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.
So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
So now you don't accept that it could have come from elsewhere? you're all over the place.
Given that a few posts ago you were claiming that there is no antidote, you aren't exactly arguing from a position of credibility.
Lack of verifiable facts means doubt. You're all the ones believing stuff you have to believe as an act of faith.... Not me.
It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?
It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.
So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.
If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.
That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.
Still enough to incapacitate though, but you're right about the slow rate of incapacitation. Certainly indicates either a botched job or purposely sub lethal.
That is assuming that it was indeed on the door though... just another thing we've been told.
The door handle report is consistent with the injuries sustained by the police office who visited the house, obviously several hours later when it had degraded still further.
I'd label this as a botch job (maybe the victim was supposed to touch the handle earlier than actually happened). If someone wanted to send a message that was sub lethal, there are other ways of doing that - this could easily have killed the victim and other people if it had been touched and spread earlier.
Zhivago wrote:
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?
""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London." https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian
Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?
As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.
That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.
At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.
I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.
Corbyn hasn't been shown the most sensitive intelligence because he can't be trusted. That particular gem was in the media a long time ago.
But your media piece, which I quoted wasn't from a government source. That was the point being made.
I raise the logical point again that would the governments of Germany France etc have gone along with May if the overall proof wasn't strong? They may have expressed sympathy but wouldn't have expelled diplomats or risked Russian retribution. If the British government had been selective with the truth over the scientific evidence, Im sure their own scientific advisors would have been able to have their say - they spent long enough considering the response after all.
Sandydragon wrote:
It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.
So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.
If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.
That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.
Still enough to incapacitate though, but you're right about the slow rate of incapacitation. Certainly indicates either a botched job or purposely sub lethal.
That is assuming that it was indeed on the door though... just another thing we've been told.
The door handle report is consistent with the injuries sustained by the police office who visited the house, obviously several hours later when it had degraded still further.
I'd label this as a botch job (maybe the victim was supposed to touch the handle earlier than actually happened). If someone wanted to send a message that was sub lethal, there are other ways of doing that - this could easily have killed the victim and other people if it had been touched and spread earlier.
If it's a botched job, doesn't that raise the possibility of it being a non-state actor? Perhaps on the behest of a Russian mafia type oligarch or so?
In which case, shouldn't we be working with the Russian government? Would also explain why they are so indignant...
Zhivago wrote:
As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.
That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.
At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.
I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.
No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.
All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.
Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.
So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
So now you don't accept that it could have come from elsewhere? you're all over the place.
Given that a few posts ago you were claiming that there is no antidote, you aren't exactly arguing from a position of credibility.
Lack of verifiable facts means doubt. You're all the ones believing stuff you have to believe as an act of faith.... Not me.
A few posts ago I was quoting the chemist who made it as he said there was no antidote. I of course didnt realize that an embarrasingly wrong keyboard warrior like you would know the chemsitry better than the chemist who made it.
So, from your continual misdirection I take it you actually dont have any objective facts at all.
Its like you never left.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Donny osmond wrote:No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.
All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.
Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.
So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
So now you don't accept that it could have come from elsewhere? you're all over the place.
Given that a few posts ago you were claiming that there is no antidote, you aren't exactly arguing from a position of credibility.
Lack of verifiable facts means doubt. You're all the ones believing stuff you have to believe as an act of faith.... Not me.
A few posts ago I was quoting the chemist who made it as he said there was no antidote. I of course didnt realize that an embarrasingly wrong keyboard warrior like you would know the chemsitry better than the chemist who made it.
So, from your continual misdirection I take it you actually dont have any objective facts at all.
Its like you never left.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Doesn't matter who you quoted, it's clear you were wrong.
Sandydragon wrote:
I raise the logical point again that would the governments of Germany France etc have gone along with May if the overall proof wasn't strong?
There is also the various governments suspect Russia of assassinating folks across Europe for sometime under Putin. Whether political or business rivals of Putin, or reporters who're brave enough to write pieces on corruption and such like
Interesting comments from legendary US economist and author Michael Hudson:
Well I was puzzled at first about the whole treatment of the affair of poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter because the treatment is so out of proportion–the reaction is so out of proportion–that it’s obvious that the issue is not about the poisoning itself. First of all there’s no evidence to show Russian involvement. But the important thing to realize is that even if there were a government assassination attempt, the reaction is entirely different things. It’s really about international diplomacy and NATO maneuvering for a military posturing and the reaction has no connection at all according to the poisoning, they’re only using the poisoning as an excuse to wrap a policy that was already thought of and sort through before the actual Skripel Gate occurred. I think anyone who’s seen James Bond movies knows that 07 can kill enemies. And the U.S. assassinates people all the time. It’s killed foreign leaders like the president Allende in Latin America and the whole wave of political terrorism that followed–killing tens of thousands of union leaders, and university professors, and land reformers, and the Obama administration targeted foreigners for drone strikes. Even when this kills large numbers of civilians as collateral damage.
No foreign country broke relations with Britain, or the United States, or Israel, or any other countries using targeted assassination as a policy. So this pretense that Russia has killed someone even without any evidence or with any trial is implausible on the very surface.
So, the question is why are they doing this with Russia? Why are they imposing sanctions and mounting a great publicity campaign? And I think the answer has to lie in looking at why are they doing this now. Timing is the key. So let’s step back a minute and note what seems to be out of the ordinary in the British and US and NATO reaction. For starters the sanctions are supposed to be part of a diplomatic game plan designed to counter the presumed benefits to Russia. When the United States and Britain imposed banking factions they said this is to show you that if you think you can gain we’re going to make you lose even more than you gain. What’s bizarre here is that what gives Russia’s benefit in killing an ex-British spy who has been returned to the West in a spy trade and according to the reports wanted to go back to Russia. Nobody suggested any benefit to Russia at all and obviously there isn’t any. Therefor the sanctions are independent of any benefit and hence the poisonings. And regard to the poisonings themselves, the basis of Western law is a presumption of innocence and reliance on evidence. No judgment without evidence is supposed to be given. Otherwise it’s a rush to judgment or a “He Said, She Said” affair.
And the second principle of Western law is that both sides get to present their case. But in the Skripel affair, which is now being called Skipel Gate, there is no opportunity for Russia to present its case. The Russians have not been given samples of the poison that could exonerate them. They haven’t even been admitted to see Mr. Skripal, although he’s a Russian citizen, or his daughter. who’s now awake and recovering. The British will not even let Skripel’s relatives come to Britain. So the reaction is so out of proportion that obviously there’s a disconnect. This is a double standard and there’s a pre-existing prejudice here. So I think instead of retaliation there seems to be a pre-determined strategy of attack on Russia and an attempt to isolate its economy.
And the question is: why is this occurring? And what are its aims? I wondered at first is it payback for the U.S. failure to use ISIS and Al-Qaeda as America’s foreign legion to destroy Syria and replace Assad with a pro U.S. ruler? Grab its oil? The frustration about Crimea’s vote to join Russia?
There certainly seems to be an economic cold war that’s being escalated and the intention is to isolate Russia but instead it’s driving Russia, China, and Iran closely together. So what we have is a threat to isolate Russia if it does not do certain things. And so to solve the Skripal affair you have to think – what are these things be that the United States and Britain wants? Well one thing is for Russia to pressure North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program which of course it will only do if the United States demilitarizes the peninsula.
Another U.S. aim is to have Russia withdraw from Syria. President Trump announced last week that he wanted just to pull out of Syria. But the question is if he pulls out what will Russia do? Are these sanctions a stick saying, well OK, you see what we can do to hurt Russia but we’ll drop all these sanctions if you withdraw Russia from Syria. Maybe another aim is to get Russian concessions not to back eastern Ukraine.
The United States when it wants to isolate a country traditionally accuses them of chemical warfare. This goes back to George Bush’s accusation that Iraq had chemical weapons of mass destruction. We know that was a lie. It goes back to Obama’s claim that Russia and Assad were using chemical weapons in Syria. So I think when they say that Russia or Assad or Iraq is using weapons that’s part of to generate a fear that is supposed to be met by military preparedness and defense.
Now last week President Trump repeated what he said when he was running for president. He wants European countries to pay more of the military cost of NATO. He’s been saying this for over a year. And I think this is what this Skripal affair is really all about. The aim by using something as emotional as chemical weapons is to create an anti-Russia hysteria that will enable NATO governments to pick up much more of the military budget than they are now doing from the United States. It will force all their countries to pay 2 percent of their GDP to the U.S. Military-Industrial-Complex. So essentially, the Skripel affair is to frighten populations to enable NATO to try to push through more military spending on the U.S. defense industry and to pick up more of the cost of NATO, when the populations are going to say… wait a minute, the European Eurozone budgets can’t monetize a budget deficit… if we pick up more military spending for NATO than we’re going to have to cut back our social spending and we can’t have both guns and butter. So the Skripal is to try to soften the European population, to frighten it into sayin… yes we better pay for guns, we can do without the butter. So you’re having there exactly the fights that happened in the United States in the Vietnam War in the 1960s. And I think there’s also an attempt to use these accusations as a means of employing sanctions to disrupt Western trade with Russia and China by blocking insurance companies such as Lloyd’s of London from insuring shipping and other transportation. Banks saying we’re not going to give you these services anymore, Russia. And the parallel sanction would be to block U.S. banks.
Since 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved the capital outflow to the West has been about twenty five billion dollars per year. That means a quarter of a trillion dollars in a decade and half a trillion dollars in 20 years. And the outflow has been continuing until recently at 25 billion a year. Just in the last two weeks you’ve had in the paper the kerfuffle about the Latvian banks that were vehicles for Russian money laundering… as if the West was shocked to find out that they were actually laundering money for Russia. That’s why Latvian banks were established! Already before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1988 and 89, Grigory Luchansky, who worked for the University of Latvia in Riga, became the vehicle setting up Nordex as a way for the KGB and the Russian military to begin moving its money out of Russia. Billions of dollars a year through the various Latvian banks for the last 25 years. The main business of Latvian banks has been to receive Russian deposits and then move them into the West either into British banks or into Delaware corporations. I was research director and economics professor for the Riga Graduate School of Law for some time -maybe six or seven years ago – so I dealt with the Latvian government, with a prime minister, with bank regulators regularly, and they explained to me that the whole purpose of Latvian banks was to encourage Russia capital outflows to the West. And from the United States point of view, this was a way of draining Russia. It was the idea of pushing neoliberal privatization on Russian utilities, natural resources, and real estate and saying… first of all, privatize these public assets like Norilsk Nickel and oil companies like Khodorkovsky… and the only way you can make money now that you’ve privatized them, you have them in your hands, and the only way you can cash out since there’s no money left in Russia is to sell them to the West. And so that basically they sold them to the West while accumulating huge embezzlements through false export invoicing, moving the money into British banks primarily, and that’s why you see the Russian kleptocrats buying very conspicuous properties in London and bidding up the price of London real estate.
Now all of this has drained Russia tremendously and the United States by threatening to stop the banks drain, and in fact, to begin grabbing the assets of Russian kleptocrats. What’s the effect? The Russian kleptocrats are now frightened and are moving their money out of England, out of the United States, out of Delaware corporate relations, out of the Cayman Islands or wherever they have it back into Russia. So while there are sanctions against U.S. banks giving money to Russia. You have this huge dollar inflow and sterling inflow back into Russia that Russia is using to build up its gold stocks and all of this. So it’s a hilarious example of trying to hurt Russia by threatening the oligarchs, but actually stopping the capital outflow and that’s occurring as a result of privatization.
Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of Killing the Host (2015), The Bubble and Beyond (2012), Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971)
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Sandydragon wrote:
Corbyn hasn't been shown the most sensitive intelligence because he can't be trusted. That particular gem was in the media a long time ago.
But your media piece, which I quoted wasn't from a government source. That was the point being made.
