Salisbury nerve agent attack a false flag/decoy operation?

Chrongen · 07-05-2018 02:59AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To repeat. The UK government believes it is "highly likely" the Kremlin was involved. They have stated this several times. Bar a Boris interview - that's been the general line from the UK gov

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/theresa-may-says-highly-likely-russia-is-responsible-for-spys-poisoning/2018/03/12/7baa6d22-25f4-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.32cdb43efae8

AND TO REPEAT,

"Highly likely" is not good enough.

Either proof or not proof.

I could very easily say, without any proof, that it is "highly likely" that you, Dohnjoe, are a vampire. I have provided ZERO proof but simply a quasi-semantic verbal dance.

You can talk about rumours, allegations and couple them with epithets such as "probably", "hinted at", "confidently suspected", etc., etc.

I want proof. I want someone to say something such as "I know that this [or that] is a fact and here is the proof",

otherwise your talk of "high likeliness" is meaningless.

If the proof is there, then why not show it?

Overheal · 07-05-2018 03:42AM

Possibly because they have some form of proof, but revealing it would also reveal the means of intelligence gathering used to obtain that proof. For years, law enforcement in the United States ignored evidence gathered by, and denied the existence of Stingray devices which allow a low flying aircraft to intercept and wiretap all cellular communication within an immediate area by spoofing as a cell tower. This was only finally revealed in court documents when the DOJ found a large enough fish to reel in with th evidence gathered.

Nobody with a brain believes this Salisbury farce

Please don’t post sweeping generalizations like this. You wouldn’t appreciate it if another person said “anyone who doesn’t believe 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust is a Nazi-loving moron,” now would you? It’s not a constructive addition to this conversation. Thanks.

Dohnjoe · 07-05-2018 11:31AM

Chrongen wrote: »

AND TO REPEAT,

"Highly likely" is not good enough.

Public and private evidence can be enough for countries to take action. For example there's no "proof" (subjective) that N Korea was involved in the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam with VX gas, but the evidence and indicators were deemed sufficient for Malaysia to take action to boot out the North Korean ambassador

In the Skripal case, the current evidence and indicators point towards Kremlin involvement. The private intelligence was enough to convince 28 countries. The Kremlin reaction naturally didn't help their cause, pumping out a large amount of wild and contradictory theories is not how a modern accountable country responds when trying to resolve an international incident

This is far from finished, wouldn't be surprised to see more expulsions and possibly sanctions over the incident as more details come to light

Chrongen · 09-05-2018 09:41PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Public and private evidence can be enough for countries to take action. For example there's no "proof" (subjective) that N Korea was involved in the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam with VX gas, but the evidence and indicators were deemed sufficient for Malaysia to take action to boot out the North Korean ambassador

In the Skripal case, the current evidence and indicators point towards Kremlin involvement. The private intelligence was enough to convince 28 countries. The Kremlin reaction naturally didn't help their cause, pumping out a large amount of wild and contradictory theories is not how a modern accountable country responds when trying to resolve an international incident

This is far from finished, wouldn't be surprised to see more expulsions and possibly sanctions over the incident as more details come to light

Decisions that affect a population on the basis of evidence that must be not made public are not decisions that can be trusted.

A government, and representatives therein are elected by the people. For you or anybody else to state that decisions they make must be hidden from the electorate is anathema to an open and democratic and transparent society.

If you think that decision makers can have carte blanche to decide what you are allowed to know with regards to what they do in your emploi then you might want to redefine your definition of governance.

Chrongen · 09-05-2018 09:48PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Public and private evidence can be enough for countries to take action. For example there's no "proof" (subjective) that N Korea was involved in the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam with VX gas, but the evidence and indicators were deemed sufficient for Malaysia to take action to boot out the North Korean ambassador

In the Skripal case, the current evidence and indicators point towards Kremlin involvement. The private intelligence was enough to convince 28 countries. The Kremlin reaction naturally didn't help their cause, pumping out a large amount of wild and contradictory theories is not how a modern accountable country responds when trying to resolve an international incident

This is far from finished, wouldn't be surprised to see more expulsions and possibly sanctions over the incident as more details come to light

Were they good enough for you?

To me facts and proof are everything.

If someone like yourself allows a bit of wooliness into the mix then it completely sullies and destroys the concept of truth and lies.

I don't want to be insulting here but if you think that there is a reason to act within the confines of a decision that isn't solid but one that you merely want to veer towards anyway then it makes you a person of very biased, unreliable, lazy and untrustworthy thinking.

Dohnjoe · 09-05-2018 10:52PM

Chrongen wrote: »

A government, and representatives therein are elected by the people.

We live in representative democracies. They don't have to show private intelligence - entirely up to them if they want to risk their sources

In the same way you aren't personally entitled to know all the evidence/intelligence/sources when they apprehend, arrest and charge terrorist suspects

Dohnjoe · 09-05-2018 11:02PM

Chrongen wrote: »

To me facts and proof are everything.

Your personal levels of "facts" and "proof" are subjective (and I guessing very, highly selective). 28 countries have made a decision based on the public and private evidence available to them. They have more information than you do.

When Malaysia kicked out the N Korean Ambassador after Kim JN was assassinated on Malaysian soil with nerve gas - what are your thoughts on that?

Chrongen · 10-05-2018 02:33AM

Overheal wrote: »

Possibly because they have some form of proof, but revealing it would also reveal the means of intelligence gathering used to obtain that proof. For years, law enforcement in the United States ignored evidence gathered by, and denied the existence of Stingray devices which allow a low flying aircraft to intercept and wiretap all cellular communication within an immediate area by spoofing as a cell tower. This was only finally revealed in court documents when the DOJ found a large enough fish to reel in with th evidence gathered.

Please don’t post sweeping generalizations like this. You wouldn’t appreciate it if another person said “anyone who doesn’t believe 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust is a Nazi-loving moron,” now would you? It’s not a constructive addition to this conversation. Thanks.

"Sweeping generalisations"?

How about lies or certainly what might be classed as unsubstantiated or uncorroborated claims...another term for falsehoods? Cast your memory back to post #14 and #17

The current (growing) evidence points toward Russian state involvement

There is no other evidence of other theories, including the 14 (and increasing) different theories and explanations presented by the Kremlin

except no evidence at all points anywhere.

Another claim by Mr Dohnjoe was that a Russian nerve agent was confirmed to have been used ...except it wasn't confirmed. This is a lie. Stating that there are "strong suspicions" or "high confidence" is a very simple tactic for telling a lie. One doesn't say it is emphatic so one can't be accused of so doing yet the effort is to convince the stupid and the gullible.

Clever tactic but it only really works on those who are easily fooled.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 05:58AM

I've told you already, and you've been carded already, for derailing a thread about disputing moderator actions, which is handled by PM or DRP. Take some time off to contemplate that.

Dohnjoe · 10-05-2018 11:10AM

Chrongen wrote: »

Another claim by Mr Dohnjoe was that a Russian nerve agent was confirmed to have been used ...except it wasn't confirmed.

Just to address this distortion for anyone else reading

The chemical used in Salisbury was confirmed to be from the Novichok family by Porton Down and the OPCW. Novichok was originally developed by the Soviets in the late 70's, and confirmed by Russian scientists who revealed the program (Novichok is Russian for "newcomer"). Some other labs have been known to synthesize it (not weaponise it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 10:08PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just to address this distortion for anyone else reading

The chemical used in Salisbury was confirmed to be from the Novichok family by Porton Down and the OPCW. Novichok was originally developed by the Soviets in the late 70's, and confirmed by Russian scientists who revealed the program (Novichok is Russian for "newcomer"). Some other labs have been known to synthesize it (not weaponise it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent

Developed by the Soviet Union. There is no evidence Russia has a secret chemical weapons program making this stuff. America and UK still haven't got rid of their chemical weapons. OPCW was given access to all sites in Russia. That agent can be made by other countries and UK clearly had Novitchok too at Porton Down as they figured out in 24 hours what the agent was.

Skipral was likely attacked by MI6 for geopolitical reasons. He more useful as a pawn.

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 10:35PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your personal levels of "facts" and "proof" are subjective (and I guessing very, highly selective). 28 countries have made a decision based on the public and private evidence available to them. They have more information than you do.

When Malaysia kicked out the N Korean Ambassador after Kim JN was assassinated on Malaysian soil with nerve gas - what are your thoughts on that?

There was a clear motive for that attack. Kim was removing a guy who could replace him someday.

There no motive for the Salisbury attack. Russia has denied it continuously that leads me to believe it wasn't them and if they wanted Skipral dead it would not have taken them 8 years to get to him. He was exactly hiding out keeping a low profile.

I don't believe Putin ordered this hit, but I am open to rogue agents carrying this out with no state sanction. Could be an internal dispute between Skipral and other nefarious characters he knew?

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2018 11:14PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Developed by the Soviet Union.

Which is modern day Russia. Same military.

There is no evidence Russia has a secret chemical weapons program making this stuff.

There's probably a ton of evidence.

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2018 11:19PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There was a clear motive for that attack.

Clear motive for the Skripal attack. Killing (another) spy.

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 11:23PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is modern day Russia. Same military.

There's probably a ton of evidence.

That's your belief system. Have you seen any evidence Russia made the nerve agent that poisoned Skipral? If you saw evidence please back that up.

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 11:25PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Clear motive for the Skripal attack. Killing (another) spy.

Handed over Spy Russia already had imprisoned for his crimes. Putin goes after spies on the run, not spies they pardoned.

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2018 11:31PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

belief system.

Nothing to do with belief systems, basic deduction. Intelligence has to be strong to convince 28 countries.

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 11:37PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nothing to do with belief systems, basic deduction. Intelligence has to be strong to convince 28 countries.

They got intelligence the nerve agent was Novichok a nerve agent made in the Soviet Union and that's it. Did you see intelligence Russia was involved? Why did the UK foreign ministry blaming Russia remove that tweet weeks after the incident? If the intelligence is solid why they remove this tweet?

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2018 11:45PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Putin goes after spies on the run, not spies they pardoned.

Putin goes after spies on the run, which spies?

His release was demanded by the UK for the spy swap. Once he was in the UK he continued to pass information.

The Russian's didn't like that

Kirill Kleymenov warned of the dangers of spying on Russia and advised those who betrayed their country: "Don't choose Britain as a place to live."

"“Don’t choose England as a place to live. Whatever the reasons, whether you’re a professional traitor to the motherland or you just hate your country in your spare time, I repeat, no matter, don’t move to England,”

"“Something is not right there. Maybe it’s the climate. But in recent years there have been too many strange incidents with a grave outcome. People get hanged, poisoned, they die in helicopter crashes and fall out of windows in industrial quantities,”

Russian state TV
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/10/russian-state-tv-warns-traitors-dangers-living-britain/

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2018 11:47PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They got intelligence the nerve agent was Novichok a nerve agent made in the Soviet Union and that's it.

Nope. The UK sent one of it's largest ever private intelligence dossiers to other countries.

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 11:53PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Putin goes after spies on the run, which spies?

His release was demanded by the UK for the spy swap. Once he was in the UK he continued to pass information.

The Russian's didn't like that

Russian state TV
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/10/russian-state-tv-warns-traitors-dangers-living-britain/

Any spy who fled to the UK obviously and was never caught they are still considered traitors. Russia handed Skipral over because he could harm them anymore the information he had was likely irrelevant for the times. He was a Soviet Union spy. There still no evidence Russia went after him and made no sense Putin would sanction the using a nerve agent that could be blamed on Russia. Russia could have snatched him and killed him with less fuss.

Cheerful Spring · 13-05-2018 11:56PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope. The UK sent one of it's largest ever private intelligence dossiers to other countries.

The British police even admitted recently they had no suspects. So whatever you think was in this dossier is all in your head.

Dohnjoe · 13-05-2018 11:58PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Any spy who fled to the UK obviously and was never caught they are still considered traitors.

You wrote:

Putin goes after spies on the run

Goes after? how do you mean? which spies?

Cheerful Spring · 14-05-2018 12:05AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You wrote:

Goes after? how do you mean? which spies?

I don't have a list of names of spies who escaped to the UK. If they escaped and never got punished for there crimes they are marked, people. All countries target spies who sell secrets to other countries.

Dohnjoe · 14-05-2018 12:06AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The British police even admitted recently they had no suspects.

True

So whatever you think was in this dossier is all in your head.

False

Circumstantial evidence can be strong. for example they could know from internal sources that the Novichok programme was continuing in Russia, that Skripal had been monitored by Russia for 5 years, that the Kremlin had been discussing a hit on Skripal, etc, etc

They may not know which specific agents carried out the attack, that's probably going to involve a lot of trawling through CCTV and all that - that's what the investigation is for

Dohnjoe · 14-05-2018 12:08AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have a list of names of spies who escaped to the UK. If they escaped and never got punished for there crimes they are marked, people.

I'll try asking again..

1. Which spies?

2. When you write "Putin goes after", what do you mean? murder?

Do you base assertions on your imagination or are they actually backed up by something?

Cheerful Spring · 14-05-2018 12:10AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

True

False

Circumstantial evidence can be strong. for example they could know from internal sources that the Novichok programme was continuing in Russia, that Skripal had been monitored by Russia for 5 years, that the Kremlin had been discussing a hit on Skripal, etc, etc

They may not know which specific agents carried out the attack, that's probably going to involve a lot of trawling through CCTV and all that - that's what the investigation is for

OPCW revealed in 2017 that Russia destroyed all of its chemical weapons programs and facilities. They visited even the site the UK claims Novitchok was made and gave it the all clear. There no evidence Russia continued this program. The claim they are was made by the UK only, doing so in secret. UK government has a history of lying about WMD.

Cheerful Spring · 14-05-2018 12:16AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'll try asking again..

1. Which spies?

2. When you write "Putin goes after", what do you mean? murder?

Do you base assertions on your imagination or are they actually backed up by something?

Russian spies who are trading state secrets to foreign governments.

They are enemies of Russia. Would Putin go after them probably if revealing secrets of importance?

Dohnjoe · 14-05-2018 12:20AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

OPCW revealed in 2017 that Russia destroyed all of its chemical weapons programs and facilities.

lol, obviously not

Source for this? Because the OPCW seems pretty dead set that this is high purity Novichok probably from a state lab

Dohnjoe · 14-05-2018 12:23AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Russian spies who are trading state secrets to foreign governments.

Dodging the question

Which spies

You made an assertion. It must be based on something. Which spies? names.

They are enemies of Russia. Would Putin go after them probably if revealing secrets of importance?

You asserted Putin "goes after" spies

Simple question. What do you mean by "goes after", tries to have them murdered?

Salisbury nerve agent attack a false flag/decoy operation?

Comments