RugbyRebels

oh dear... looked like May jumped the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 86761.html

"UK experts cannot prove novichok nerve agent used on Skripals came from Russia, MoD says"

Zhivago wrote:oh dear... looked like May jumped the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 86761.html

"UK experts cannot prove novichok nerve agent used on Skripals came from Russia, MoD says"

How embarrassing for the British

Similar to the Americans having to fess up to the fact they had no evidence against Assad at all, after Trump had already fired a missile at them as punishment (ostensibly) . . .

Does that mean that Corbyn was right to wait on the evidence?
Still seems vastly more likely to be Russia than anywhere else though.

Given that we're about to lose billions as a result of electoral fraud...I'd say waiting for the evidence was a good idea.

Yes, Corbyn is right about a lot of things. That's the problem...

& Lavrov might have a point here as well:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on April 2 suggested that the poisoning of a former double agent could benefit the British government by distracting attention from problems around Brexit.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/lavrov ... ovt-129682

I dont think so though. I think that's just tit-for-tat. Most likely from the cui bono perspective is someone determined to drive a wedge firmly between Britain & Russia at this particular juncture.

Which Tyler wrote:Does that mean that Corbyn was right to wait on the evidence?
Still seems vastly more likely to be Russia than anywhere else though.

Just hypothetical - some countries' motives:
USA - Skripal was working with Orbis on the Trump dossier/frame Russia to try to influence their elections
France/Germany - embarass UK into weaker hand for Brexit (a stretch)
Britain - distract public from Brexit/Cambridge Analytica/look strong for local elections
Russia - assassinate double agent

so yes, Russia just about the most likely, although their reaction has been very victim-like. I tend to think it's a CIA plot

Zhivago wrote: so yes, Russia just about the most likely,

Lots of people with monetary gain would like to think it was the Rooskis.
Then again, those same people would love some cheap propaganda that mentioned anything other than their cheap profit margin.
That's how the cheap pricks make their money.

Zhivago wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Does that mean that Corbyn was right to wait on the evidence?
Still seems vastly more likely to be Russia than anywhere else though.

Just hypothetical - some countries' motives:
USA - Skripal was working with Orbis on the Trump dossier/frame Russia to try to influence their elections
France/Germany - embarass UK into weaker hand for Brexit (a stretch)
Britain - distract public from Brexit/Cambridge Analytica/look strong for local elections
Russia - assassinate double agent

so yes, Russia just about the most likely, although their reaction has been very victim-like. I tend to think it's a CIA plot

You said in the anti Zionism thread that you make decisions based on facts. What facts do you have that CIA plotted the attack? If the CIA acted all victim like, would that make you think they were innocent?

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Does that mean that Corbyn was right to wait on the evidence?
Still seems vastly more likely to be Russia than anywhere else though.

Just hypothetical - some countries' motives:
USA - Skripal was working with Orbis on the Trump dossier/frame Russia to try to influence their elections
France/Germany - embarass UK into weaker hand for Brexit (a stretch)
Britain - distract public from Brexit/Cambridge Analytica/look strong for local elections
Russia - assassinate double agent

so yes, Russia just about the most likely, although their reaction has been very victim-like. I tend to think it's a CIA plot

You said in the anti Zionism thread that you make decisions based on facts. What facts do you have that CIA plotted the attack? If the CIA acted all victim like, would that make you think they were innocent?

This is spy stuff, there cannot be any certainty for us, nor have I expressed anything as a statement of fact.

My ultimate position is that we can not know who is responsible, and that multiple countries have sufficient motives and means, for which I have provided USA as an example.

Do you really think the USA would undertake such a risky venture in a country that it has a close security connection with?
is it at all credible that the USA would create an enormous political and diplomatic headache for its closet ally?
Is it all reasonable that it would undertake such a dangerous operation with potentially lethal consequences, not only for the intended victims, but for innocent UK citizens?

The notion that the Govt would sanction this and get full co-op from the security services to carry out this attack just to deflect from other matters is laughable.

France/Germany is certainly a stretch. Think you'll find we have a pretty weak bargaining hand already in the Brexit negotiations.

Given the latest announcement coming out of Porton Down are we now all agreeing we can trust the public announcements of authorities in the West?

Zhivago wrote:
This is spy stuff, there cannot be any certainty for us, nor have I expressed anything as a statement of fact.

My ultimate position is that we can not know who is responsible, and that multiple countries have sufficient motives and means, for which I have provided USA as an example.

But you haven’t provided the USA as an example, you explicitly said you think they did it, although you have very quickly changed that to don’t know.

Here’s what you said on the other thread, btw...

We can either base our views on a biased media narrative, or on the best objective facts available. Everyone should decide which is their basis, but for me I'll choose the latter every time.

Where are the best objective facts about the Salisbury poisoning coming from?

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
This is spy stuff, there cannot be any certainty for us, nor have I expressed anything as a statement of fact.

My ultimate position is that we can not know who is responsible, and that multiple countries have sufficient motives and means, for which I have provided USA as an example.

But you haven’t provided the USA as an example, you explicitly said you think they did it, although you have very quickly changed that to don’t know.

Here’s what you said on the other thread, btw...

We can either base our views on a biased media narrative, or on the best objective facts available. Everyone should decide which is their basis, but for me I'll choose the latter every time.

Where are the best objective facts about the Salisbury poisoning coming from?

The objective facts are the history of the major intelligence agencies, which tells us that our foremost position should be to doubt and assess very critically the official narrative.

There are objective facts relating to the victims and what their activities were.

There are objective facts relating to the synthesis of the agents apparently used, its antidote and its forensic detection.

All of these should lead us to question the official narrative. By entertaining alternative narratives we increase doubt in the main one.

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/ ... l_2018.pdf

" of a type developed by Russia"

Very careful wording.

The objective facts are the history of the major intelligence agencies, which tells us that our foremost position should be to doubt and assess very critically the official narrative.

Very true, very wise. For example, Russia has a long history of execution and assassination, especially of former spies. We could ignore this completely and focus only on the UK and US agencies, no argument about their failings, but if we're being objective we cant ignore what Russia is known to get up to. If we're being objective.

There are objective facts relating to the victims and what their activities were.

such as? Source?

There are objective facts relating to the synthesis of the agents apparently used, its antidote and its forensic detection.

Such as? There's no antidote btw so I'd love to seem some objective facts on that.

All of these should lead us to question the official narrative. By entertaining alternative narratives we increase doubt in the main one.

I'm all for asking questions, but this reads like you're increasing doubt in the main narrative for the sake of it, rather than because there are objective reasons to. Surely not?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/ ... l_2018.pdf

" of a type developed by Russia"

Very careful wording.

But unequivocal backing of the U.K.

Mellsblue wrote:https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/ ... l_2018.pdf

Amongst other highlights... "... it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no plausible alternative explanation."

"...it is regrettable that the Russian Federation did not ... provide relevant information. Instead we witnessed a flood of insinuations... "

Any objective observer could certainly draw some startling conclusions.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Such as? There's no antidote btw so I'd love to seem some objective facts on that

Are you kidding me? The antidote would be the appropriate oxime, based on the specific organophosphate. Alongside that, atropine and diazepam.

Question is around identifying which appropriate oxime to use in time, and administration before death.

The fact that Porton Down could tell the hospital so rapidly which oxime to use is suspicious. It also points to Porton Down having their own samples of "Novichoks".

Please try and learn something about this before you leap in. The use of oximes and other anti-cholinesterase has long been recognised as the best means of protecting against the long-term effects of nerve agent poisoning. Our training in Germany in the 80s was designed to protect us against the expected chemical attacks that would be part of any Soviet attack (I can assure you I was never trained in any strategic offensive against the Warsaw Pact nations nor was I ever trained in the offensive under NBC conditions). We were all issued NAPS, which would pre-load us with a similar anti-cholinesterase.

We were also issued with atropine injector pens as immediate first aid to get us over the immediate crisis of nerve agent poisoning. Atropine alone, might save a life, but without the anti-cholinesterase it might not be much of a life worth saving.

Any one of my soldiers could have told you this. We didn't need Porton Down to work it out for us.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Please try and learn something about this before you leap in. The use of oximes and other anti-cholinesterase has long been recognised as the best means of protecting against the long-term effects of nerve agent poisoning. Our training in Germany in the 80s was designed to protect us against the expected chemical attacks that would be part of any Soviet attack (I can assure you I was never trained in any strategic offensive against the Warsaw Pact nations nor was I ever trained in the offensive under NBC conditions). We were all issued NAPS, which would pre-load us with a similar anti-cholinesterase.

We were also issued with atropine injector pens as immediate first aid to get us over the immediate crisis of nerve agent poisoning. Atropine alone, might save a life, but without the anti-cholinesterase it might not be much of a life worth saving.

Any one of my soldiers could have told you this. We didn't need Porton Down to work it out for us.

But you need to know which oxime... And that's not so simple because compounds such as A-232 have an amine group with an extra proton...

... Ps. don't be so supercilious.

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Please try and learn something about this before you leap in. The use of oximes and other anti-cholinesterase has long been recognised as the best means of protecting against the long-term effects of nerve agent poisoning. Our training in Germany in the 80s was designed to protect us against the expected chemical attacks that would be part of any Soviet attack (I can assure you I was never trained in any strategic offensive against the Warsaw Pact nations nor was I ever trained in the offensive under NBC conditions). We were all issued NAPS, which would pre-load us with a similar anti-cholinesterase.

We were also issued with atropine injector pens as immediate first aid to get us over the immediate crisis of nerve agent poisoning. Atropine alone, might save a life, but without the anti-cholinesterase it might not be much of a life worth saving.

Any one of my soldiers could have told you this. We didn't need Porton Down to work it out for us.

But you need to know which oxime... don't be so supercilious.

No you don't. If in doubt or you cannot identify the poisoning agent you can apply any acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.

p.s. Don't attempt to be so supercilious when you haven't a fecking clue what you're talking about.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Please try and learn something about this before you leap in. The use of oximes and other anti-cholinesterase has long been recognised as the best means of protecting against the long-term effects of nerve agent poisoning. Our training in Germany in the 80s was designed to protect us against the expected chemical attacks that would be part of any Soviet attack (I can assure you I was never trained in any strategic offensive against the Warsaw Pact nations nor was I ever trained in the offensive under NBC conditions). We were all issued NAPS, which would pre-load us with a similar anti-cholinesterase.

We were also issued with atropine injector pens as immediate first aid to get us over the immediate crisis of nerve agent poisoning. Atropine alone, might save a life, but without the anti-cholinesterase it might not be much of a life worth saving.

Any one of my soldiers could have told you this. We didn't need Porton Down to work it out for us.

But you need to know which oxime... don't be so supercilious.

No you don't. If in doubt or you cannot identify the poisoning agent you need to can apply any acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.

Piffle, we all know military personnel were issued with a veritable barrage of auto-injectors and told in the event of a nerve agent attack to first conduct a test on which oxime was needed.

Though more broadly this latest point seems a semantic discussion on treatment Vs antidote, and then I suppose care Vs treatment.

It is, of course, a matter of record that in the run up to the first Gulf War we were so stuffed full of every possible prophylactic chemical against every possible chemical and biological agent that we could hardly stand.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Please try and learn something about this before you leap in. The use of oximes and other anti-cholinesterase has long been recognised as the best means of protecting against the long-term effects of nerve agent poisoning. Our training in Germany in the 80s was designed to protect us against the expected chemical attacks that would be part of any Soviet attack (I can assure you I was never trained in any strategic offensive against the Warsaw Pact nations nor was I ever trained in the offensive under NBC conditions). We were all issued NAPS, which would pre-load us with a similar anti-cholinesterase.

We were also issued with atropine injector pens as immediate first aid to get us over the immediate crisis of nerve agent poisoning. Atropine alone, might save a life, but without the anti-cholinesterase it might not be much of a life worth saving.

Any one of my soldiers could have told you this. We didn't need Porton Down to work it out for us.

But you need to know which oxime... don't be so supercilious.

No you don't. If in doubt or you cannot identify the poisoning agent you need to can apply any acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.

Yes you do. We aren't talking about well known nerve agents.