RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:Ciao.

You deserting a critical discussion...?. I'm surprised.

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:So to summarise the alternative viewpoint.

Don’t believe the British government because they lied in 2003.
Do believe Putin because he is an honest and upstanding citizen.
Poisoning people in rural British towns is fine .
The Russians were allowed to do it because the target was a cock.
The Russians were allowed to do it because sovereign governments in Eastern Europe went closer relations with NATO.

I think that covers most of the arguments from RT, Counter Punch, the Labour Party’s official spokesmen and whatever the fuck KK gets his information from.

Thankfully not everyone is that gullible.

I think you've described the crazy person, not kk. Also, don't forget "painting all British people with the same brush because of their colonial past, forever and ever."

Of course, how could I forget that!

If in doubt, blame America/Israel/the West in general/ lizard men/ new world order.

That John Barnes rap has a lot to answer for

kk67 wrote:

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

It's a helluva coincidence. And now that nice Mr.Williamson is giving them a whopping new budget.
But , let's be clear, this £48million is for chemical weapons 'defence'.

The idea that the Russians produced a secret Organophosphate Toxin 40 years ago that is super toxic and undetectable, but that:

a) our secret services haven't figured it out how to produce it by now despite the US dismantling the testing facility in Uzbekistan.

b) it hasn't killed the targets despite being the most toxic and it was readily detected despite being designed to be undetectable and its origin was established relatively quickly.

That idea is hard to be convinced by.

It wasn't the Russian government, is was the Russian mafia, so says the Dear Leader™.

The family of the policeman poisoned by the nerve agent tells Corbyn to do one, and even the Dear Leader™ should be able to tell he's wandered out onto thin ice now. The question is whether he'll care, he's been banging the anti Western drum a long time now, he's always been certain he's right, he didn't do as badly in the last election as many thought, and it's not like much of the Parliamentary Labour Party don't have much more than derision for him before this latest, so does a leopard change its spots?

Zhivago wrote:

kk67 wrote:

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

It's a helluva coincidence. And now that nice Mr.Williamson is giving them a whopping new budget.
But , let's be clear, this £48million is for chemical weapons 'defence'.

The idea that the Russians produced a secret Organophosphate Toxin 40 years ago that is super toxic and undetectable, but that:

a) our secret services haven't figured it out how to produce it by now despite the US dismantling the testing facility in Uzbekistan.

b) it hasn't killed the targets despite being the most toxic and it was readily detected despite being designed to be undetectable and its origin was established relatively quickly.

That idea is hard to be convinced by.

Based on the reading I’ve done in the last 24 hrs:

a) A nation can’t legally produce this stuff. Even if they could, why bother?

b.1) They’ve only been saved by their proximity to Porton Down. If they do survive, they’ll be vegetables. One expert has said that even those midly exposed to it will have significant medical issues down the years.
b.2) Again, Porton Down. It’s world leading and science has advanced enough for them to detect it. Even if you dismiss that, despite numerous experts stating so, you’ve also kind of answered your own question by pointing out that the US helped dismantle the production facility. If you think they should now be able to produce it because of that, they could certainly be able to detect it.
b.3) They’ve established its origin as it was only produced in a few select places and was used to (attempt to) kill a Russian defector and his innocent daughter.

Here's my theory :


1. US obtained Novichok samples from while decommissioning a testing facility in Uzbekistan in 1999.

2. Skripal was helping Orbis with intel on Russian Trump dossier.

3. CIA or other US organisation (including possibly oligarchs linked to Trump) attempts assassination of Skripal to stop these activities... And uses Russian/Soviet Novichok so that all fingers are pointed at Russia/Putin

Zhivago wrote:Here's my theory :


1. US obtained Novichok samples from while decommissioning a testing facility in Uzbekistan in 1999.

2. Skripal was helping Orbis with intel on Russian Trump dossier.

3. CIA or other US organisation (including possibly oligarchs linked to Trump) attempts assassination of Skripal to stop these activities... And uses Russian/Soviet Novichok so that all fingers are pointed at Russia/Putin

So you're basically taking Watergate and adding assassination to the cover up?

I can't see the point in considering theories tbh, not without actual evidence to back them up. If you're worried the authorities don't put out the truth in these situations then run for public office.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Here's my theory :


1. US obtained Novichok samples from while decommissioning a testing facility in Uzbekistan in 1999.

2. Skripal was helping Orbis with intel on Russian Trump dossier.

3. CIA or other US organisation (including possibly oligarchs linked to Trump) attempts assassination of Skripal to stop these activities... And uses Russian/Soviet Novichok so that all fingers are pointed at Russia/Putin

So you're basically taking Watergate and adding assassination to the cover up?

I can't see the point in considering theories tbh, not without actual evidence to back them up. If you're worried the authorities don't put out the truth in these situations then run for public office.

So Russia tries to assassinate him = obvious truth
US tries to assassinate him = conspiracy theory

What is it do you think the CIA gets up to in its spare time exactly? Conspiracy is its raison d'etre.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Here's my theory :


1. US obtained Novichok samples from while decommissioning a testing facility in Uzbekistan in 1999.

2. Skripal was helping Orbis with intel on Russian Trump dossier.

3. CIA or other US organisation (including possibly oligarchs linked to Trump) attempts assassination of Skripal to stop these activities... And uses Russian/Soviet Novichok so that all fingers are pointed at Russia/Putin

So you're basically taking Watergate and adding assassination to the cover up?

I can't see the point in considering theories tbh, not without actual evidence to back them up. If you're worried the authorities don't put out the truth in these situations then run for public office.

So Russia tries to assassinate him = obvious truth
US tries to assassinate him = conspiracy theory

What is it do you think the CIA gets up to in its spare time exactly? Conspiracy is its raison d'etre.

In situations such as this you can either decide to have some trust in the official version, or you can doubt any take on the situation. What I don't think makes any sense is to doubt an official version and support a conspiracy theory. So yes the CIA get involved in all sorts, so too MI6, so too the GRU or Mossad, and so on and so on.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

So you're basically taking Watergate and adding assassination to the cover up?

I can't see the point in considering theories tbh, not without actual evidence to back them up. If you're worried the authorities don't put out the truth in these situations then run for public office.

So Russia tries to assassinate him = obvious truth
US tries to assassinate him = conspiracy theory

What is it do you think the CIA gets up to in its spare time exactly? Conspiracy is its raison d'etre.

In situations such as this you can either decide to have some trust in the official version, or you can doubt any take on the situation. What I don't think makes any sense is to doubt an official version and support a conspiracy theory. So yes the CIA get involved in all sorts, so too MI6, so too the GRU or Mossad, and so on and so on.

I'm not saying it's as I said for sure. By presenting alternative theories I am absolutely doubting what happened. It is impossible for us to know the truth about this.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
So Russia tries to assassinate him = obvious truth
US tries to assassinate him = conspiracy theory

What is it do you think the CIA gets up to in its spare time exactly? Conspiracy is its raison d'etre.

In situations such as this you can either decide to have some trust in the official version, or you can doubt any take on the situation. What I don't think makes any sense is to doubt an official version and support a conspiracy theory. So yes the CIA get involved in all sorts, so too MI6, so too the GRU or Mossad, and so on and so on.

I'm not saying it's as I said for sure. By presenting alternative theories I am absolutely doubting what happened. It is impossible for us to know the truth about this.

I find it much more credible the truth will out in a society like ours than Russia's. I'm not for one moment suggesting we don't have lies and coverups, but it's harder in a more open society to keep the truth locked up, so if I lean one way in instances like this it'd be toward the UK and not Russia.

And of course there's the duck test

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
In situations such as this you can either decide to have some trust in the official version, or you can doubt any take on the situation. What I don't think makes any sense is to doubt an official version and support a conspiracy theory. So yes the CIA get involved in all sorts, so too MI6, so too the GRU or Mossad, and so on and so on.

I'm not saying it's as I said for sure. By presenting alternative theories I am absolutely doubting what happened. It is impossible for us to know the truth about this.

I find it much more credible the truth will out in a society like ours than Russia's. I'm not for one moment suggesting we don't have lies and coverups, but it's harder in a more open society to keep the truth locked up, so if I lean one way in instances like this it'd be toward the UK and not Russia.

And of course there's the duck test

You are being awfully harsh, Diggers. It is perfectly reasonably to denounce a theory, provided by scientists and experts and backed up with evidence and further experts, that puts the theory beyond reasonable doubt only to believe a theory that I assume is taken from Homeland and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I'm not saying it's as I said for sure. By presenting alternative theories I am absolutely doubting what happened. It is impossible for us to know the truth about this.

I find it much more credible the truth will out in a society like ours than Russia's. I'm not for one moment suggesting we don't have lies and coverups, but it's harder in a more open society to keep the truth locked up, so if I lean one way in instances like this it'd be toward the UK and not Russia.

And of course there's the duck test

You are being awfully harsh, Diggers. It is perfectly reasonably to denounce a theory, provided by scientists and experts and backed up with evidence and further experts, that puts the theory beyond reasonable doubt only to believe a theory that I assume is taken from Homeland and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

What evidence?!

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I find it much more credible the truth will out in a society like ours than Russia's. I'm not for one moment suggesting we don't have lies and coverups, but it's harder in a more open society to keep the truth locked up, so if I lean one way in instances like this it'd be toward the UK and not Russia.

And of course there's the duck test

You are being awfully harsh, Diggers. It is perfectly reasonably to denounce a theory, provided by scientists and experts and backed up with evidence and further experts, that puts the theory beyond reasonable doubt only to believe a theory that I assume is taken from Homeland and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

What evidence?!

I did guess Homeland but you might have got it from a Matt Damon movie.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You are being awfully harsh, Diggers. It is perfectly reasonably to denounce a theory, provided by scientists and experts and backed up with evidence and further experts, that puts the theory beyond reasonable doubt only to believe a theory that I assume is taken from Homeland and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

What evidence?!

I did guess Homeland but you might have got it from a Matt Damon movie.

You Brexiteers are dragging us into the past, ow it seems you want to bring the cold war back. Lacking an enemy of late, its it? Pathetic.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
What evidence?!

I did guess Homeland but you might have got it from a Matt Damon movie.

You Brexiteers are dragging us into the past, ow it seems you want to bring the cold war back. Lacking an enemy of late, its it? Pathetic.

I voted remain.

Was it Mission Impossible III?

I think its more likely to be Risky Business.

I think that the whole thing could be the result of some over-indulged teenage twat in a pair of white Jockeys getting his bangs over a half-shadow shot of Rebecca de Mornay's nipple.

Weird Science

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

Weekend at Bernies





what are we doing?

BBD wrote:Weekend at Bernies





what are we doing?

Wtf kind of question is that?

Beetlejuice

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

BBD wrote:Weekend at Bernies





what are we doing?

That was a good question 10 pages ago.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being [an opinionated twat]

Its all gone a bit Breakfast Club

I was only asking

Take a day off, BBD. A Ferris Bueller's Day Off.