RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
While NATO has Russia completely surrounded by military bases, and has moved right into Eastern Europe, in violation of post-Cold War agreements, enlisting the support of roof-top snipers and Neo Nazis to slaughter civilians in the Ukraine.

A post war agreement that those outside Russia suggest was never agreed.

Invasion of Ukraine.
Invasion of Georgia.
Bully tactics to Baltic states and Sweden.

Great neighbour to have.

Yes, it was agreed, but silly Russians for believing anything that came out of a Bush's mouth (Papa Bush in this instance).

Russia did not invade the Ukraine. There was an American-backed coup, removal of a pro-Moscow government and installation of a corrupt pro-Western oligarch, Neo Nazis and others attacked ethnic Russians, burning many alive, leading the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea to vote overwhelmingly in favor of a return to Russia.

The invasion of Georgia was in response to a Georgian invasion of Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians as they lay sleeping in their beds. Ossetians are not even ethnic Russians, but speakers of a Farsi dialect.

Meanwhile, NATO has been carrying out war games in the Baltics and Sweden has been an accomplice in their notorious kidnapping and illegal extraditions of suspects.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
While NATO has Russia completely surrounded by military bases, and has moved right into Eastern Europe, in violation of post-Cold War agreements, enlisting the support of roof-top snipers and Neo Nazis to slaughter civilians in the Ukraine.

A post war agreement that those outside Russia suggest was never agreed.

Invasion of Ukraine.
Invasion of Georgia.
Bully tactics to Baltic states and Sweden.

Great neighbour to have.

I think the Russians have a point that the part of Ukraine they took was a legacy of them not thinking the USSR would split and it's more reasonably Russian than Ukranian, though how they went about sorting that is shocking. Still more shocking is quoting Rowan however, it goes against any common notions of basic decency

Which was a legacy of the USSR days when Moscow dispersed populations across the empire. There was no legal justification for the invasion, just a smokescreen for the useful idiots to gobble down and regurgitate.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
While NATO has Russia completely surrounded by military bases, and has moved right into Eastern Europe, in violation of post-Cold War agreements, enlisting the support of roof-top snipers and Neo Nazis to slaughter civilians in the Ukraine.

A post war agreement that those outside Russia suggest was never agreed.

Invasion of Ukraine.
Invasion of Georgia.
Bully tactics to Baltic states and Sweden.

Great neighbour to have.

Yes, it was agreed, but silly Russians for believing anything that came out of a Bush's mouth (Papa Bush in this instance).

Russia did not invade the Ukraine. There was an American-backed coup, removal of a pro-Moscow government and installation of a corrupt pro-Western oligarch, Neo Nazis and others attacked ethnic Russians, burning many alive, leading the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea to vote overwhelmingly in favor of a return to Russia.

The invasion of Georgia was in response to a Georgian invasion of Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians as they lay sleeping in their beds. Ossetians are not even ethnic Russians, but speakers of a Farsi dialect.

Meanwhile, NATO has been carrying out war games in the Baltics and Sweden has been an accomplice in their notorious kidnapping and illegal extraditions of suspects.

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: A post war agreement that those outside Russia suggest was never agreed.

Invasion of Ukraine.
Invasion of Georgia.
Bully tactics to Baltic states and Sweden.

Great neighbour to have.

Yes, it was agreed, but silly Russians for believing anything that came out of a Bush's mouth (Papa Bush in this instance).

Russia did not invade the Ukraine. There was an American-backed coup, removal of a pro-Moscow government and installation of a corrupt pro-Western oligarch, Neo Nazis and others attacked ethnic Russians, burning many alive, leading the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea to vote overwhelmingly in favor of a return to Russia.

The invasion of Georgia was in response to a Georgian invasion of Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians as they lay sleeping in their beds. Ossetians are not even ethnic Russians, but speakers of a Farsi dialect.

Meanwhile, NATO has been carrying out war games in the Baltics and Sweden has been an accomplice in their notorious kidnapping and illegal extraditions of suspects.

At the invitation of the Baltic states. As sovereign states they can arrange what they want inside their own borders and in international waters.

We import 13 per cent Gazprom LNG to the UK.
Natural assets war, pipeline war really. They're all trying to steal natural assets, like the mess we've made of DRC, is why our own homegrown psychopathic morons are going to kill us all.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:You are all insane. Why aren't we following international law on this? Doesn't it feel like our gov has something to hide? Even after Iraq, are you all still so gullible?

In what way is the UK not following International Law? Apart, of course, from carrying out fals flag attacks with stolen Russian nerve agents, although that should be obvious.

I’ve been trying to find some legal requirement for the U.K. to inform the UN or anyone else to launch an independent investigation. Can’t find anything yet.

kk67 wrote:13 per cent Gazprom LNG import to the UK.

Lets focus on the natural assets war, whereby they're all trying to steal. Which is why our homegrown psychopathic morons are going to kill us all.

Act of war committed on British soil. It’s not our psychopathic morons who are trying to start a war.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:13 per cent Gazprom LNG import to the UK.

Lets focus on the natural assets war, whereby they're all trying to steal. Which is why our homegrown psychopathic morons are going to kill us all.

Act of war committed on British soil. It’s not our psychopathic morons who are trying to start a war.

It was committed on British soil, yes, but the case against Russia is falling apart and never actually had any substance to begin with, aside from Russophobic paranoia. As for starting wars, NATO is by far the major perpetrator in this respect - and has been basically since its inception.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:13 per cent Gazprom LNG import to the UK.

Lets focus on the natural assets war, whereby they're all trying to steal. Which is why our homegrown psychopathic morons are going to kill us all.

Act of war committed on British soil. It’s not our psychopathic morons who are trying to start a war.

Sandy,....our psychopathic morons have always loved war. It makes money and it culls the deprived population.
It gets unfortunate for the establishment when the deprived population return from war with a greater outlook.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: A post war agreement that those outside Russia suggest was never agreed.

Invasion of Ukraine.
Invasion of Georgia.
Bully tactics to Baltic states and Sweden.

Great neighbour to have.

I think the Russians have a point that the part of Ukraine they took was a legacy of them not thinking the USSR would split and it's more reasonably Russian than Ukranian, though how they went about sorting that is shocking. Still more shocking is quoting Rowan however, it goes against any common notions of basic decency

Which was a legacy of the USSR days when Moscow dispersed populations across the empire. There was no legal justification for the invasion, just a smokescreen for the useful idiots to gobble down and regurgitate.

I think the local populace might well have voted to align with Russia if given the choice, exploring a vote on that and how they might have split ruling functions would have made much sense. Also making more sense is that Russia will always exert huge power over the likes of Ukraine and didn't need to go anywhere close to their illegal seizure of lands

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:
Yes, it was agreed, but silly Russians for believing anything that came out of a Bush's mouth (Papa Bush in this instance).

Russia did not invade the Ukraine. There was an American-backed coup, removal of a pro-Moscow government and installation of a corrupt pro-Western oligarch, Neo Nazis and others attacked ethnic Russians, burning many alive, leading the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea to vote overwhelmingly in favor of a return to Russia.

The invasion of Georgia was in response to a Georgian invasion of Ossetia, killing hundreds of civilians as they lay sleeping in their beds. Ossetians are not even ethnic Russians, but speakers of a Farsi dialect.

Meanwhile, NATO has been carrying out war games in the Baltics and Sweden has been an accomplice in their notorious kidnapping and illegal extraditions of suspects.

At the invitation of the Baltic states. As sovereign states they can arrange what they want inside their own borders and in international waters.

That didn't seem to apply to Cuba, now, did it? In fact, it didn't apply to Iraq, Libya, Syria or Yemen, among countless others, either. Sovereignty is one thing the US and UK have NEVER respected . . .

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: What do you think is being hidden?

15 years after the Iraq invasion, is it logical to assume that the government is continually lying based on that one event, or is it more logical, and perhaps more mature, to look at each event on a case by case basis?

So, why do you think this is suspect?

Ok, let's look at this case. What facts do we have?

A very rare nerve agent that was manufactured in the old USSR which is used for the first time (overseas) in the UK.
An ex Russian agent targeted after Putin has gone in the record to suggest all should be killed who betray their country.

And a bit of previous by Russia.

This substance is t rare to have come from somewhere else. Either it’s a state sponsored attack or it’s been stolen. Hence why th government have asked for an explanation, which Russia seems reluctant to give.

You may wish to do some research on nerve agents, it is possible to trace where they have originated.

I must say, it was really fortunate that this attack happened just 7 miles away from where our experts in this field work...

And in terms of facts, you don't know that what you state is true.

We don't know it was Novichok... certainly our government isn't sharing samples of the Nerve Agent with anyone else... something to hide?

We also said it was Russia before saying it was Novichok. That's not tracing it... that's determining who it was and finding the most irrefutable 'evidence'... a Nerve Agent that no one knows much about that is only from Russia. Hard to contradict that...

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:You are all insane. Why aren't we following international law on this? Doesn't it feel like our gov has something to hide? Even after Iraq, are you all still so gullible?

In what way is the UK not following International Law? Apart, of course, from carrying out fals flag attacks with stolen Russian nerve agents, although that should be obvious.

I’ve been trying to find some legal requirement for the U.K. to inform the UN or anyone else to launch an independent investigation. Can’t find anything yet.

I'll save you some time... I looked also and perhaps I overstated it. It's at least not an area I can comment on without a proper education.

I just read that the UN invited the OPCW to conduct an independent investigation. That would be most welcome, and I hope we'll co-operate. If that points the finger at Russia, then I'll be satisfied.

Just don't like the jumping to conclusions...

1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.

2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.

3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.

4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.

5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... -wmd-scam/

rowan wrote:1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.

2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.

3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.

4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developedthem. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.

5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... -wmd-scam/

*tested

rowan wrote:1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.

2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.

3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.

4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.

5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... -wmd-scam/

The development facility for Novichok was in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, and has long since been dismantled. The storage of binary chemical weapon components was dispersed throughout the USSR, including what is now the Russian Federation. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that the know how and capability to produce it is tied to a geographical location. Russians aren’t fucking stupid.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.

2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.

3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.

4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.

5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... -wmd-scam/

The development facility for Novichok was in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, and has long since been dismantled. The storage of binary chemical weapon components was dispersed throughout the USSR, including what is now the Russian Federation. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that the know how and capability to produce it is tied to a geographical location. Russians aren’t fucking stupid.

So it's your word against that of a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan...

I just read that the UN invited the OPCW to conduct an independent investigation. That would be most welcome, and I hope we'll co-operate. If that points the finger at Russia, then I'll be satisfied.


Definitely needs to happen, but be careful to note exactly what their findings are . In Syria they established sarin gas had been used, leading the Western mainstream corporate propaganda industry to immediately declare Assad guilty - even as investigative journalists and reporters on the ground there were informing those would would listen that the trail led directly to the US-backed rebels/terrorists. Only once the furore had died down did the US leadership quietly concede it had no actual evidence against Assad, and now, in fact, Syrian forces have uncovered a chemical weapons factory in Eastern Ghouta which had been used by the rebels-terrorists - not that you would know it from the Western mainstream corporate propaganda industry.

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.

2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.

3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.

4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.

5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... -wmd-scam/

The development facility for Novichok was in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, and has long since been dismantled. The storage of binary chemical weapon components was dispersed throughout the USSR, including what is now the Russian Federation. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that the know how and capability to produce it is tied to a geographical location. Russians aren’t fucking stupid.

So it's your word against that of a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan...

It’s a verifiable fact, not a rhetorical game.

Is that an appeal to authority/accomplishment, No-one (takes you seriously, let alone like you)? Working our way through the checklist are we?

"The nerve agent novichok was developed and produced in Shikhany, home of a military research establishment in central Russia, according to a chemical weapons expert. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said the information was contained in a report submitted several years ago by Russia to the international body that monitors chemical weapons, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)"

More here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... are_btn_tw

This would be the same Hamish de Bretton-Gordon who was a colonel in the British army during various invasions of other nations and an advisor to NATO, oft-cited during the Western mainstream corporate propaganda industry's witch-hunt against Assad in Syria (since discredited).

OPCW Director-General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, congratulated Russia with the following announcement:

"The completion of the verified destruction of Russia's chemical weapons programme is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I congratulate Russia and I commend all of their experts who were involved for their professionalism and dedication. I also express my appreciation to the States Parties that assisted the Russian Federation with its destruction program and thank the OPCW staff who verified the destruction."

The OPCW's press statement confirmed that:

"The remainder of Russia's chemical weapons arsenal has been destroyed at the Kizner Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in the Udmurt Republic. Kizner was the last operating facility of seven chemical weapons destruction facilities in Russia. The six other facilities (Kambarka, Gorny, Maradykovsky, Leonidovka, Pochep and Shchuchye) completed work and were closed between 2005 and 2015."

The OPCW does not agree with the vague US and British insistence that Russia failed to declare all its chemical weapons stockpiles and facilities. At this point, neither the US nor Britain have offered any actual evidence as to why the OPCW's verification process regarding Russia's dismantlement of its chemical weapons capability should be disbelieved.

The OPCW is, of course, the same agency whose independent investigations the West is relying on to determine culpability in major chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Why, then, would the OPCW's conclusions on Syria be considered gospel truth, while its conclusions on Russia be rejected?




In the meantime, the US itself has been criticized for exporting arms classified as 'toxicological agents' (notably tear gas) to numerous countries in the Middle East (between 2009-13). Since 9/11, the US has also intensified its R&D on non-lethal chemical agents, along with new means of delivery and dispersal. The CWC (Article II, para. 2) does cover chemical compounds with incapacitating or irritant effects... Taken together with the delay in destroying US CW stockpiles, this has taken a toll on the US' standing within the CWC, undermining its role as a 'regime hegemon'. Since these compliance concerns remain unresolved, this has also, ipso facto, affected the authority of the CWC, and hence the OPCW."

https://www.sott.net/article/379951-UK- ... nst-Russia

One thing we can be sure about is that the timing of the incident works against Putin, not in his favor. & the West is furious with Putin because he has thwarted its imperialist designs on Syria. Cui bono?

Outrageous

Shame on Jeremy Corbyn for yet again wanting to see the evidence before jumping to conclusions

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a despicable track record of wanting to see evidence before concluding that people are guilty – and it’s simply not the British way. Corbyn did it with Iraq, with Afghanistan, with Libya and with Syria – and now the meddling nelly is up to his old tricks again with Russia.

Granted, when the evidence finally came out, Corbyn was proved right on Iraq. And Afghanistan. And definitely Libya and Syria given that Britain’s rush to war sparked the catastrophic proliferation of the ISIS death cult. But with Russia’s alleged involvement in the poisoning of Double Agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Corbyn really needs to stop asking tough questions and simply accept that Russia definitely must have done it.

Today after Theresa May’s statement on the Salisbury attack, the know-it-all Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn began asking the Prime Minister completely irrelevant questions such as if the Tories had ordered samples of the nerve agent to be sent for analysis to see if it originated in Moscow (which the Tories hadn’t), and about why the Tories decided to make sweeping cuts to the British Diplomatic Service – a service which definitely wouldn’t have prevented the attack despite this kind of attack being one of the things the service would have previously made plans to try and prevent.

These questions were about as irrelevant as when the public and a small minority of MPs had the temerity to ask the government for proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) before we invaded Iraq and killed around a million civilians. It doesn’t matter one jot that Saddam turned out not to have them – what matters is that he was an evil dictator and deserved what was coming to him – much like Putin.

Evidence should always be irrelevant when it comes to our decisions to attack the bad guys – and, as Britain and our Western allies are so clearly always the good guys because we try (and sometimes inevitably fail) to spread freedom, we should simply be forgiven for making catastrophic mistakes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and be allowed to flout whatever international laws we like and jump to whatever conclusions we see fit based only on flimsy evidence in the pursuit of our strangely murderous but definitely righteous version of freedom.

Dr Patricia White, who served on the 2004-6 WMD Commission and is now the Research Director for International Security at Chatham House, said that British experts would definitely be able to detect minute trace elements in the Novichok nerve agent used in Salisbury that would prove the country of origin, stating:

“There are very high resolution analysis techniques that can track down trace elements, certain types of chemicals in the particular region where it has been made.

Russia knows there are techniques to pinpoint where something came from” adding that “Whoever did this would know this was traceable back to Russia. So why use such an obvious thing, leaving such an obvious trace?”

And, whilst briefing journalists after his traitorous rebuttal to our glorious leader in the Commons today, Corbyn’s spokesman Seamus Milne grumbled that:

“I think obviously the government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don’t; however, also there’s a history in relation to WMD and intelligence which is problematic to put it mildly.

So I think the right approach is to seek the evidence; to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibited chemical weapons, because this was a chemical weapons attack, carried out on British soil. There are procedures that need to be followed in relation to that.”

But the fact that Corbyn is whining on about wanting to see proof again shouldn’t pressure the government into releasing the definitive scientific evidence that British authorities should already be in possession of – because it would only tell us what we already know, that Russia are definitely culpable. Plus, it would vindicate Corbyn’s obvious lack of trust in the establishment – an establishment who quite rightly need the general public to place their blind trust in everything they say without feeling like they need to ask valid questions or wanting to see evidence.

And the fact that ex-MI5 agent Annie Machon also questioned the government’s rush to judgement to blame Russia – saying that the “UK facility for identifying those agents was able to identify this very quickly [which would] indicate that they [knew] exactly what this nerve agent is, which means that they have the chemical formula for it too.” – should simply be ignored. British secret service agents are notoriously untrustworthy and unintelligent – MI5 have virtually no background checks and regularly let any Tom, Dick or Harry work for them and trust to keep Britain’s most important State secrets.

Former MI5 agent Machon also ridiculously speculated that Russia may not have had a motive for poisoning Mr Skripal, saying that “From the very start of this story… they need to work out what the motive was […] Skripal was a guy who had been caught by the Russians. He’d been tried and convicted, sent to prison, and then released and pardoned by the Russians, and sent back to the UK. He had been debriefed – picked clean, intelligence-wise, both by the Russians… and by MI6 when he came to live in the UK. So what is the motive there?”

It makes no odds that Skripal had been released from a Russian prison and pardoned – Putin is evil and would clearly jump at the chance to risk potentially catastrophic ramifications by deploying a banned chemical weapon which could obviously be traced back to him on British soil to try and murder someone who he had released from prison and pardoned.

And, as Theresa May said in her incredibly strong and stable statement today:

“[…] on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia.

Based on this capability, combined with their [Russia’s] record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act.”

For the Tories and almost every Labour right-winger who got it completely wrong about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, the circumstantial evidence set out by Theresa May today is, quite rightly, all the proof that these truly patriotic Brits need to jump to conclusions once again.

I mean, what possible harm can getting it completely wrong and jumping to conclusions on such an important foreign policy decision do again?

There were cries of “shame” from both the Tory benches and the Labour backbenches after Jeremy Corbyn failed to condemn the Kremlin outright for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, and they were right. Shame on Jeremy Corbyn for yet again wanting to see the evidence before jumping to conclusions.

https://evolvepolitics.com/shame-on-jer ... nclusions/