Another Russian Spy?

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, ccc said:

I don't  believe much either UK.Gov or Russia.Gov told me.

But sitting back and looking at this event ? I'm on the Russians side from what we have been told by both. The UK has zero evidence. Nothing.

There's evidence, although not enough to stand up in court probably (they're not going to come out and publicise everything they do have). What aspects of the whole thing do you think are facts, and the most plausible explanation that can be drawn from that?

[ccc]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

There's evidence, although not enough to stand up in court probably (they're not going to come out and publicise everything they do have). What aspects of the whole thing do you think are facts, and the most plausible explanation that can be drawn from that?

There is zero evidence that has been released to either the public or the Russians. 

I've no clue what is real or made up. I wasn't there. 

However the claims made by us are ridiculous without anything to back them up. 

A number of days when this has been the top story I have watched the BBC version - then turned over and watched the RT version.

Every point has been completely destroyed. And whilst I have nothing against Russia personally - I'm certainly not a huge fan. 

 

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

Ask yourself, "Who is gaining" from all these various smearing episodes? Definately not the Russia Gov't.
Been in play for many years now.

[Riedquat]

6 hours ago, ccc said:

There is zero evidence that has been released to either the public or the Russians. 

I've no clue what is real or made up. I wasn't there. 

However the claims made by us are ridiculous without anything to back them up. 

A number of days when this has been the top story I have watched the BBC version - then turned over and watched the RT version.

Every point has been completely destroyed. And whilst I have nothing against Russia personally - I'm certainly not a huge fan.

"I wasn't there" - do you take that line about every single thing you hear about? You don't think that anyone was hurt, that there was any nerve agent involved? Or are those at least reasonably likely enough to not be made up? Yes, sure, you didn't witness it with your own eyes but I'm sure you know there's a whole spectrum between "definitely didn't happen" and "definitely did" and that lack of cast-iron proof for the latter extreme doesn't mean assuming the former is likely.

The idea that the whole thing is an invention just to make Russia look bad certainly doesn't stack up at all and most of what Russia has come up with in its claims makes Moon conspiracy theorists look sensible (they also like claiming lack of proof).

[chronyx]

So the media lies about high house prices, immigration, inflation, etc, but this is unquestionable and must be taken as gospel.

 

[Peter Hun]

15 hours ago, chronyx said:

We don't need evidence when we have Peter.  Death to the commies.

Why should you be given the evidence?It's absolute nothing to do with you.

It's for the court to decide.

But yeah, death to fascists. 

[chronyx]

2 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Why should you be given the evidence?It's absolute nothing to do with you.

It's for the court to decide.

But yeah, death to fascists. 

You're just making this up as you go along aintcha freak show

[Peter Hun]

9 minutes ago, chronyx said:

You're just making this up as you go along aintcha freak show

Now now Yura, don't get rattled.

[chronyx]

16 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Now now Yura, don't get rattled.

Maybe I'll Novichok you next

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, chronyx said:

So the media lies about high house prices, immigration, inflation, etc, but this is unquestionable and must be taken as gospel.

I don't think the media does outright lie much, although it's very lazy about getting the details of facts right and loves putting an often bonkers spin on things and being selective in what it does report. But automatically saying "if it's in the media it must be wrong" is (slightly) more stupid than believing everything they say. The trick is to apply thinking, not to substitute thinking with an arbitrary rule for determining what is and isn't true.

[ccc]

9 hours ago, Riedquat said:

"I wasn't there" - do you take that line about every single thing you hear about? You don't think that anyone was hurt, that there was any nerve agent involved? Or are those at least reasonably likely enough to not be made up? Yes, sure, you didn't witness it with your own eyes but I'm sure you know there's a whole spectrum between "definitely didn't happen" and "definitely did" and that lack of cast-iron proof for the latter extreme doesn't mean assuming the former is likely.

The idea that the whole thing is an invention just to make Russia look bad certainly doesn't stack up at all and most of what Russia has come up with in its claims makes Moon conspiracy theorists look sensible (they also like claiming lack of proof).

Watch the BBC version of the story then turn over to the RT one then come back to me. They literally destroy every single claim thrown at them. Its actually embarrassing as a UK citizen to see our Government so totally taken the piss out of.

Ok - here are just a few points that I have picked up and remembered off the top of my head:

(1) Super secret Russian assassin spies. Yet they come to the UK on a Russian visa that they had to apply to the UK Government for and leave as good a trail as they possibly could.

(2) Super secret Russian assassin spies. Instead of walking around later at night with a cap covering over their faces. They walk around in broad daylight to ensure their HD pics of their faces in amazing quality.  Laughable. Especially when you think of the pics we are shown of all the Islamist attackers in previous years in the UK. Never have we had such quite amazing quality footage. Nothing close. Yet for these two ? You couldn't get any better.

(3) So after this amazing cunning plan to sneak this deadly nerve agent into the UK to do this fiendish assassination plan. Do they take the evidence to some old mine shaft and make sure its gone for good ? Do they set up a nice big fire and ensure its totally destroyed ? Or do whatever it is that their masters in Russia tell them is the way to get rid of it ? No - they lob it in to the nearest rubbish bin they happen to walk past. Again. its beyond laughable.

(4) And as for this most deadly of nerve agents. Neither of the targets died. Not that deadly was it....

(5) And as for this 'Russian' nerve agent ? The UK has made this nerve agent itself. And where ? 5 miles up the road. Rather convenient. The 'recipe' is also readily available and by all accounts any semi decent chemist could create it with little bother. Anyone could have made it - anywhere.

There are multiple other points raised by numerous people as well. They are all out there available to peruse.

The only way I could think what the UK is claiming is true ?  If the Russians are on purpose making it look so utterly ridiculous that everyone would laugh at how stupid it all sounded. Now that may be possible. And if so - I've been had. But I doubt it.

There is no evidence. None. Zero. Does that not bother you a little ?

[chronyx]

Fair play ccc. The effort/reward ratio isn't there for me. You'll just get called a russian kremlin bot/agent.

The fox is hungry in Saint Petersburg this week. 

[Riedquat]

19 minutes ago, ccc said:

Watch the BBC version of the story then turn over to the RT one then come back to me. They literally destroy every single claim thrown at them. Its actually embarrassing as a UK citizen to see our Government so totally taken the piss out of.

"The UK has made this nerve agent itself" - evidence for that, or is evidence only important where it matters to your hypotheses? Along with "anyone could've made it."

As for the rest I'm afraid it's laughable - it pretty much amounts to saying "if they really were Russian agents they'd have been creeping around in cloaks with daggers." Walking around with a cap covering their faces? That won't make you stand out like a sore thumb. Wouldn't be a better idea to not do anything to stand out, knowing once you're back home you're OK anyway. It doesn't really matter what happens afterwards because the Russians obviously won't admit to anything. Chucking the stuff in the bin - that'll do until you're out of the country, no-one's going to pay any attention to seeing someone doing that, it's even less likely to draw attention at the time than burning it (don't know if that works or not) or finding a handy mineshaft to drop it down.

In any case you're still not concentrating on the basic points.

The evidence was that there were ill people and a nerve agent was involved, unless you're never going to believe anything that doesn't align with your prejudices. Why is one hypothesis more plausible than another? You're entire position (taking your points at face value for the sake of it) is based on "this is too obvious." The problem is that that works equally both ways. Sure, there isn't definitive evidence made public, but non of your points raise serious questions about the "Russia did it" hypothesis or make the "someone else did" one more likely.

It's embarrassing to see people swallow the Russian line of ridiculous refutals.

[steaky]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

It's embarrassing to see people swallow the Russian line of ridiculous refutals.

I guess this works both ways too?

This man has a good wee analysis (and he's a Scot so he must be right) https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/skripals-the-mystery-deepens/

Who actually stood to gain?  We'll probably never know the truth however amidst all this "Russians under the bed" hysteria (which of course has nothing to do with Syria) it certainly had some very nice timing.

[ccc]

42 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

"The UK has made this nerve agent itself" - evidence for that, or is evidence only important where it matters to your hypotheses? Along with "anyone could've made it."

As for the rest I'm afraid it's laughable - it pretty much amounts to saying "if they really were Russian agents they'd have been creeping around in cloaks with daggers." Walking around with a cap covering their faces? That won't make you stand out like a sore thumb. Wouldn't be a better idea to not do anything to stand out, knowing once you're back home you're OK anyway. It doesn't really matter what happens afterwards because the Russians obviously won't admit to anything. Chucking the stuff in the bin - that'll do until you're out of the country, no-one's going to pay any attention to seeing someone doing that, it's even less likely to draw attention at the time than burning it (don't know if that works or not) or finding a handy mineshaft to drop it down.

In any case you're still not concentrating on the basic points.

The evidence was that there were ill people and a nerve agent was involved, unless you're never going to believe anything that doesn't align with your prejudices. Why is one hypothesis more plausible than another? You're entire position (taking your points at face value for the sake of it) is based on "this is too obvious." The problem is that that works equally both ways. Sure, there isn't definitive evidence made public, but non of your points raise serious questions about the "Russia did it" hypothesis or make the "someone else did" one more likely.

It's embarrassing to see people swallow the Russian line of ridiculous refutals.

The UK has made it in Porton Down. Amongst numerous other countries. They don't deny it. It's standard practice to try to work out ways to deal with it if used against you. Feel free to Google. It's all out there. 

Again I ask you - any evidence ? Anything ? Just one thing can you point to ? 

The answer is no. 

So that really doesn't bother you ? That we have accused another country of this - and when the other country asks for something to back it up - we just shrug our shoulders ? You think that's perfectly reasonable ? 

I'm afraid the UK are the ones looking very stupid so far when it comes to this affair. 

[ccc]

58 minutes ago, chronyx said:

Fair play ccc. The effort/reward ratio isn't there for me. You'll just get called a russian kremlin bot/agent.

The fox is hungry in Saint Petersburg this week. 

There's no evidence. That's my very simple point. So based on that - and listening to what both sides are saying - the UK look like idiots and the Russians don't. 

Now this may of course change. But until that happens I will stick to basic common sense and logic. 

How anyone can attempt to say that's in any way the wrong approach really does stagger me. 

[Bruce Banner]

The two Russian tourists visiting beautiful Salisbury with it's 123 metre spire......

LOL

[debtlessmanc]

27 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

The two Russian tourists visiting beautiful Salisbury with it's 123 metre spire......

LOL

Indeed you fly into london for a few days, you dont visit the british museum, tower of london etc, what you do is get a train to salisbury to trudge around looking in coins shop windows....

[Peter Hun]

30 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

Indeed you fly into london for a few days, you dont visit the british museum, tower of london etc, what you do is get a train to salisbury to trudge around looking in coins shop windows....

As boyfriends.

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

It's  embarrassing to see people swallow the Russian line of ridiculous refutals.

Stalins useful idiots.

Unfortunately some people are irredeemably stupid and will swallow whatever crap they are given if it satisfies their existing, if idiotic, beliefs.

[zugzwang]

32 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

Indeed you fly into london for a few days, you dont visit the british museum, tower of london etc, what you do is get a train to salisbury to trudge around looking in coins shop windows....

They had plenty of time to do some or all of those things as well as make a trip to Salisbury cathedral.

[zugzwang]

2 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Stalins useful idiots.

Unfortunately some people are irredeemably stupid and will swallow whatever crap they are given if it satisfies their existing, if idiotic, beliefs.

All we ask for is evidence of their guilt. An absolute minimum expectation, legally and morally. Thus far there is none.

[Peter Hun]

Case in point is another of Putin plots, Brexit. 

[Peter Hun]

7 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

All we ask for is evidence of their guilt. An absolute minimum expectation, legally and morally. Thus far there is none.

Ate you on  the jury?

 It's none of your business.

Try going into a police station and demand the evidence. If you can afford the flight.

 

[chronyx]

7 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Case in point is another of Putin plots, Brexit. 

Freak show