The Skripal Salisbury Spooks

mcmoustache · 07-05-2021 10:55pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No I did not. I never acknowledged that. Tell me and others when I acknowledged any of the above.

It's really hard to debate with you when you don't provide your theory. I understand why you can't do it but it's just difficult to argue rationally when your position hasn't gotten past the "I don't believe it" stage of thinking.

I understand why you don't believe it. There's a whole state-sponsored opinion-manipulation program who's goal is to sow doubt on everything that that particular state is involved in and they use social media and a compliant press to achieve those goals. Much like how consent for the Iraq war was manufactured. Instead of the sheep supporting and cheering on the war in Iraq, they're now convinced that invading Ukraine was cool, that Russian's had nothing to do with MH17, the Skripals, or Litvinenko and that Putin looks sexy.

You can spot it a mile away.

Edit: I had to add this because it just showed on my twitter.

E0y3ET8VoAEkZy1?format=png

Dohnjoe · 08-05-2021 12:25am

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's really hard to debate with you when you don't provide your theory. I understand why you can't do it but it's just difficult to argue rationally when your position hasn't gotten past the "I don't believe it" stage of thinking.

I understand why you don't believe it. There's a whole state-sponsored opinion-manipulation program who's goal is to sow doubt on everything that that particular state is involved in and they use social media and a compliant press to achieve those goals. Much like how consent for the Iraq war was manufactured. Instead of the sheep supporting and cheering on the war in Iraq, they're now convinced that invading Ukraine was cool, that Russian's had nothing to do with MH17, the Skripals, or Litvinenko and that Putin looks sexy.

You can spot it a mile away.

Edit: I had to add this because it just showed on my twitter.

Remarkably accurate.

Dohnjoe · 08-05-2021 12:46am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No I did not. I never acknowledged that. Tell me and others when I acknowledged any of the above.

So Dawn Sturgess is dead and from a novichock poisoning, apparently.

It's really quite simple. Dawn Sturgess is died in hospital in Wiltshire in July 2018
(source, source) if you claim otherwise, provide evidence of it.

She died when exposed to the nerve agent Novichok, this was confirmed by the DSTL in Porton Down and the OPCW, (source, source) if you are claiming otherwise, provide evidence of it

If you can't provide any credible evidence, you aren't challenging this information, then what's to discuss?

ShatterAlan · 08-05-2021 2:05am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

This is an odd post. You have been asked for an alternative so put it forward. How can people contemplate whatever is in your head when you haven’t told them?

Let's just think for a moment.

Is there another possibilty?

King Mob · 08-05-2021 2:30am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Let's just think for a moment.

Is there another possibilty?

No, obviously not.

If there was, you wouldn't be dancing around providing it.
You can't provide any alternative because even you recognise any such alternative would be ridiculous and without evidence and would fall apart with any level of scrutiny.
You can't provide an alternative because the conspiracy mongers you follow don't provide you with one for the same reason.

So no, we can't provide an alternative either.

ShatterAlan · 08-05-2021 3:03am

So, the Russians tried, and failed, to kill somebody as reported.

Are there other possibilities?

King Mob · 08-05-2021 3:17am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So, the Russians tried, and failed, to kill somebody as reported.

Are there other possibilities?

No.

Why are you ignoring Dohnjoe's previous post now?

Fighting Tao · 08-05-2021 6:08am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So, the Russians tried, and failed, to kill somebody as reported.

Are there other possibilities?

Not that anyone else in the thread can see. Obviously you think there is so post it.

ShatterAlan · 17-05-2021 12:22am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Not that anyone else in the thread can see. Obviously you think there is so post it.

I don't have to post alternatives. That's not how DOUBT works.

If you posit that xyz happened and I have skepticism about what you say then the onus is NOT on me to provide an alternative explanation.

The narrative is that Mary got pregnant without having sexual intercourse. I don't believe it for a moment. Are you going to stamp your feet and demand that I provide an alternative hypothesis? Maybe you will. But it's not my job. Of course DJ will come along and say that just because I don't believe that Mary got pregnant without having sex than I am argiung from "incredulity". After all, she gave birth so what else could have happened?

I don't believe that Zeus pulled Morocco and Spain apart. Am I arguing from "incredulity"? Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean that it didn't happen?

After all the two continents are apart. The evidence is overwhelming that they are.
I just don't believe that Zeus pulled tham apart.

I don't believe a lot of things. I don't believe that paper can survive a fireball. You might, I don't.

King Mob · 17-05-2021 12:28am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't have to post alternatives. That's not how DOUBT works.

If you posit that xyz happened and I have skepticism about what you say then the onus is NOT on me to provide an alternative explanation.

But as we've said we can't think of any alternatives either.
So therefore there isn't any as even you aren't able to provide any.

And since there are no alternatives, and the only option is that they were killed by Russian agents, then we have to reach that conclusion. Right?

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2021 12:38am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't have to post alternatives. That's not how DOUBT works.

You do. That's how basic logic works.

If you posit that xyz happened and I have skepticism about what you say then the onus is NOT on me to provide an alternative explanation.

That's certainly not skepticism, that's denialism.

Pouring doubt on anything is simple. Anyone can do it. But if someone does it and has no intention of explaining otherwise, then that doubt is meaningless.

I don't believe a lot of things. I don't believe that paper can survive a fireball. You might, I don't.

It did survive, that's a fact. You just can't believe it, and it's obvious you think the world revolves around what you can and can't believe.

It's not just that every time you don't have a counter-explanation, it's that your denial is also faulty every time

robinph · 17-05-2021 8:09am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't have to post alternatives. That's not how DOUBT works.

If you posit that xyz happened and I have skepticism about what you say then the onus is NOT on me to provide an alternative explanation.

The narrative is that Mary got pregnant without having sexual intercourse. I don't believe it for a moment. Are you going to stamp your feet and demand that I provide an alternative hypothesis? Maybe you will. But it's not my job. Of course DJ will come along and say that just because I don't believe that Mary got pregnant without having sex than I am argiung from "incredulity". After all, she gave birth so what else could have happened?

I don't believe that Zeus pulled Morocco and Spain apart. Am I arguing from "incredulity"? Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean that it didn't happen?

After all the two continents are apart. The evidence is overwhelming that they are.
I just don't believe that Zeus pulled tham apart.

I don't believe a lot of things. I don't believe that paper can survive a fireball. You might, I don't.

You've got your example the wrong way round.

You are the one claiming that Mary got pregnant without having sex, but failing to provide the alternative explanation.

I'll help you out here and suggest that she may have had IVF treatment, but you've not even given that as a theory or the name of the clinic attended or copies of the bills for the treatment..

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2021 9:16am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The narrative is that Mary got pregnant without having sexual intercourse. I don't believe it for a moment. Are you going to stamp your feet and demand that I provide an alternative hypothesis? Maybe you will. But it's not my job. Of course DJ will come along and say that just because I don't believe that Mary got pregnant without having sex than I am argiung from "incredulity". After all, she gave birth so what else could have happened?

Unsurprisingly this is wrong.

Disbelief is not evidence. It's a concept you seem to have big difficulty with.

If you are going to claim that people weren't poisoned with Novichok in Salisbury by these two men, then you going to need to provide evidence to support that. Incredulity, scoffing and denial aren't evidence.

Fighting Tao · 17-05-2021 9:46am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't have to post alternatives. That's not how DOUBT works.

If you posit that xyz happened and I have skepticism about what you say then the onus is NOT on me to provide an alternative explanation.

The narrative is that Mary got pregnant without having sexual intercourse. I don't believe it for a moment. Are you going to stamp your feet and demand that I provide an alternative hypothesis? Maybe you will. But it's not my job. Of course DJ will come along and say that just because I don't believe that Mary got pregnant without having sex than I am argiung from "incredulity". After all, she gave birth so what else could have happened?

I don't believe that Zeus pulled Morocco and Spain apart. Am I arguing from "incredulity"? Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean that it didn't happen?

After all the two continents are apart. The evidence is overwhelming that they are.
I just don't believe that Zeus pulled tham apart.

I don't believe a lot of things. I don't believe that paper can survive a fireball. You might, I don't.

It’s not doubT in you as you believe it didn’t happen. So therefore put forward an alternative for what did happen. Just because you don’t believe something doesn’t make it untrue.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2021 10:01am

To recap the facts:

People were poisoned in Salisbury in 2018
One of those people was an ex-Russian spy
The poison turned out to be a Russian nerve agent
Traces of which discovered at the victim's residence
Russia passed a law in 2006 permitting it to carry out extra-judicial killings
Putin's administration has a history of assassinations

Moving on, the details only get more damning:

Two Russian men were in Salisbury on the day of the poisonings
CCTV shows their route took them near the site of the poisoning
They claimed to be civilians, but it turned out they were Russian agents traveling under false names
Traces of the poison were discovered at the hotel where they stayed
They left directly after the poisonings
They are wanted by the UK, Europe and Interpol but Russia has refused to hand them over

None of the above has been refuted and there's no other credible evidence for any other theory. Saying it's a strong case is putting it mildly.

King Mob · 17-05-2021 11:36am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To recap the facts:
People were poisoned in Salisbury in 2018

One of those people was an ex-Russian spy

The poison turned out to be a Russian nerve agent

Traces of which discovered at the victim's residence

Russia passed a law in 2006 permitting it to carry out extra-judicial killings

Putin's administration has a history of assassinations

Moving on, the details only get more damning:
Two Russian men were in Salisbury on the day of the poisonings

CCTV shows their route took them near the site of the poisoning

They claimed to be civilians, but it turned out they were Russian agents traveling under false names

Traces of the poison were discovered at the hotel where they stayed

They left directly after the poisonings

They are wanted by the UK, Europe and Interpol but Russia has refused to hand them over

None of the above has been refuted and there's no other credible evidence for any other theory. Saying it's a strong case is putting it mildly.

So to fit it into the analogy for Alan's benefit:
We have witnessed putting Joseph sneaking jn Mary's bedroom nine months ago.
We know that Joseph is a well know womaniser.
The baby looks an awful lot like Joseph.

But according to Alan we shouldn't accept that it was Joseph b cause of all the anti-joseph sentiment out there.
It must have been a virgin birth!

ShatterAlan · 18-05-2021 11:31pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To recap the facts:
People were poisoned in Salisbury in 2018

One of those people was an ex-Russian spy

The poison turned out to be a Russian nerve agent

Traces of which discovered at the victim's residence

Russia passed a law in 2006 permitting it to carry out extra-judicial killings

Putin's administration has a history of assassinations

Moving on, the details only get more damning:
Two Russian men were in Salisbury on the day of the poisonings

CCTV shows their route took them near the site of the poisoning

They claimed to be civilians, but it turned out they were Russian agents traveling under false names

Traces of the poison were discovered at the hotel where they stayed

They left directly after the poisonings

They are wanted by the UK, Europe and Interpol but Russia has refused to hand them over

None of the above has been refuted and there's no other credible evidence for any other theory. Saying it's a strong case is putting it mildly.

Really?

"People were poisoned in Salisbury"
And we haven't seen or heard from them since.

According to you it was a Russian nerve agent, yet even the experts can't determine its origin to this day. Bear in mind that the Russian bio-war program was dismantled under the auspices and verification of the US. And that program wasn't even in Russia.

A victim was an ex-Russian spy, you say. Great. 10 years out in the cold and he is doing what? scratching around in a two-up two-down red brick but giving sensitive information to the Brits. He must have had a serious network. And he then gets poisoned along with his daughter who brought the potion on the plane with her.

And then the word is that two high ranking and elite operatives were sent to conduct this abyssmal "hit" on a "nobody". They are so dangerous and the cream of the Russian spook crop that they stay in a dump of a hotel, get stoned and then toddle off down to murder an ex-spy and his daughter.

But they are so incompetent that they screw it up. And the first person on the scene is the chief medical officer of the British Army.

This nerve agent is then given a name, and yet the weapons experts in the UK not only disagree but insist that they have no clue where it might have come from. But Teresa May stands and screams "We are under no doubt that the Skripals have quite likely been poisoned by what we believe is almost certainly a Russian originated toxin and we are almost fully confident that this crime was ordered by Moscow"

Which says absolutely NOTHING other than to make people like you think it's all real.

Only you and a handful are either trying to peddle this drivel or you still actually believe it.

King Mob · 19-05-2021 3:37am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Really?

"People were poisoned in Salisbury"
And we haven't seen or heard from them since.

So first off, you're not claiming the event didn't happen.
You are denying people were poisoned in the first place.

What's the alternative then? Are the people who were poisoned not real? Actors? Never existed?

The reason you don't want to provide any alternatives is that any you can provide will be utterly ridiculous and completely without basis or evidence.
You don't want to say what you really believe is the explanation thing here because you've learned that you are incapable of defending your beliefs, usually because they are ridiculous and without support.
You know you will embarrass yourself again. So instead you're just denying reality.

So since you aren't able or willing to provide an alternative, and you sure can't provide any evidence to the contrary, we have to conclude that people were indeed poisoned.

The same applies to every single on of your denials.

Fighting Tao · 19-05-2021 6:14am

Serious vibes of Victor Meldrew here. “I don’t believe it!” :pac:

Something happened in Salisbury, and it was all over the news, internet, etc. If you don’t believe it happened then what happened in Salisbury? How was there so many live feeds in the city on news channels? Was the world in on a conspiracy that you can’t explain, and no one has leaked the “truth” after so long?

Repeating that you don’t believe it over and over doesn’t make something not real.

Dohnjoe · 19-05-2021 11:00am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Really?

Incredulity

"People were poisoned in Salisbury"
And we haven't seen or heard from them since.

Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned. Yulia spoke after the incident. This has been mentioned several times in the thread. The pair are still in hiding due to the threat to their lives.

According to you it was a Russian nerve agent

Not according to me, I'm not the source of this information, it's worrying if you don't grasp or understand that.

The DSTL confirmed and the OPCW also confirmed it was Novichok. The sources are in this thread. If you have information that it was something else, please provide. If you don't, your point is meaningless.

A victim was an ex-Russian spy, you say.

Again, this information doesn't come from me. Sergei Skripal is an ex-spy. If you have information to the contrary, provide, or your point is moot

Great. 10 years out in the cold and he is doing what? scratching around in a two-up two-down red brick but giving sensitive information to the Brits. He must have had a serious network. And he then gets poisoned along with his daughter who brought the potion on the plane with her.

And then the word is that two high ranking and elite operatives were sent to conduct this abyssmal "hit" on a "nobody". They are so dangerous and the cream of the Russian spook crop that they stay in a dump of a hotel, get stoned and then toddle off down to murder an ex-spy and his daughter.

But they are so incompetent that they screw it up. And the first person on the scene is the chief medical officer of the British Army.

This nerve agent is then given a name, and yet the weapons experts in the UK not only disagree but insist that they have no clue where it might have come from. But Teresa May stands and screams "We are under no doubt that the Skripals have quite likely been poisoned by what we believe is almost certainly a Russian originated toxin and we are almost fully confident that this crime was ordered by Moscow"

You haven't addressed evidence provided
You provide none of your own
You scoff at information but can't counter it
You act in disbelief at the event but you can't provide any alternative

ShatterAlan · 19-05-2021 4:06pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Serious vibes of Victor Meldrew here. “I don’t believe it!” :pac:

Something happened in Salisbury, and it was all over the news, internet, etc. If you don’t believe it happened then what happened in Salisbury? How was there so many live feeds in the city on news channels? Was the world in on a conspiracy that you can’t explain, and no one has leaked the “truth” after so long?

Repeating that you don’t believe it over and over doesn’t make something not real.

And constantly hammering the official narrative doesn't make it real either. There are many possibilities as to what might have happened. It could have been a staged event to paint Russia/Putin in a bad light and impose sanctions. Sanctions are a tool used to destabilise the economies of rival or perceived rival states. This has been admitted. Western nations don't care a fig about Chinese Uighurs and their treatment. Sanctions on China under the guise of human rights is a tool to damage China economically.

Why would Putin pull this stunt so close to the Russian Would Cup when his best interests were to show Russia in a very positive light to the world. And why would he jeopardise future spy swaps by killing a swapped spy?

It's also possible that Skripal wanted to return to Russia but the British were unwilling to let him and so concocted this whole episode. Of course I'm sure you're going to demand EVIDENCE for this knowing full well that I can't provide it since I don't work for MI5 or GCHQ. Then you can simply say "you personally don't have the evidence, hence it couldn't have happened that way".

And you talk about nobody leaking the truth for so long. How long did it take to get the truth about Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy? And if someone did leak the truth that discredited the official narrative would you believe them or just dismiss them as disgruntled, tin-foil hat wearing cranks who just want to make money by peddling a book? There were never any WMDs in Iraq yet there are people out there to this day, nearly 20 years on who will go to the grave insisting that they were found.

Fighting Tao · 19-05-2021 4:13pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And constantly hammering the official narrative doesn't make it real either. There are many possibilities as to what might have happened. It could have been a staged event to paint Russia/Putin in a bad light and impose sanctions. Sanctions are a tool used to destabilise the economies of rival or perceived rival states. This has been admitted. Western nations don't care a fig about Chinese Uighurs and their treatment. Sanctions on China under the guise of human rights is a tool to damage China economically.

Why would Putin pull this stunt so close to the Russian Would Cup when his best interests were to show Russia in a very positive light to the world. And why would he jeopardise future spy swaps by killing a swapped spy?

It's also possible that Skripal wanted to return to Russia but the British were unwilling to let him and so concocted this whole episode. Of course I'm sure you're going to demand EVIDENCE for this knowing full well that I can't provide it since I don't work for MI5 or GCHQ. Then you can simply say "you personally don't have the evidence, hence it couldn't have happened that way".

And you talk about nobody leaking the truth for so long. How long did it take to get the truth about Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy? And if someone did leak the truth that discredited the official narrative would you believe them or just dismiss them as disgruntled, tin-foil hat wearing cranks who just want to make money by peddling a book? There were never any WMDs in Iraq yet there are people out there to this day, nearly 20 years on who will go to the grave insisting that they were found.

Do you not see that you are comparing like with like and confusing the point you are trying to make? Bloody Sunday was called out for what it was, as was Ballymurphy. The British denied, the truth came out. Salisbury has also been called out for what it was. The Russians denied it….

King Mob · 19-05-2021 4:21pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There are many possibilities as to what might have happened.

Yet, you keep saying that you aren't going to provide them. You've spent pages trying to avoid giving them.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It could have been a staged event to paint Russia/Putin in a bad light and impose sanctions.

Ok. Who?
Why would they do this in a way that's so obvious that even you can tell that it wasn't really Russia?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's also possible that Skripal wanted to return to Russia but the British were unwilling to let him and so concocted this whole episode.

Why would he want to return to Russia?
Why would the British want to kill him for this?
If this is the case, why did the British do such a bad job of killing him? Why do it in such a round about obvious way?

Or are you suggesting that they wanted him to think Russia tried to kill him? If so then again we run into the problem that you believe that the whole event is an obvious conspiracy. If you, who doesn't seem to actually know much about the event can tell it wasn't Russia, wouldn't the person at the centre of the event who was a Russian spy figure it out as well?

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Of course I'm sure you're going to demand EVIDENCE for this knowing full well that I can't provide it since I don't work for MI5 or GCHQ. Then you can simply say "you personally don't have the evidence, hence it couldn't have happened that way".

Without evidence how do you personally tell the difference between these claims you're making and outright fiction?

Dohnjoe · 19-05-2021 5:49pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And constantly hammering the official narrative doesn't make it real either.

It's supported by evidence.

There are many possibilities as to what might have happened. It could have been a staged event to paint Russia/Putin in a bad light and impose sanctions. Sanctions are a tool used to destabilise the economies of rival or perceived rival states. This has been admitted. Western nations don't care a fig about Chinese Uighurs and their treatment. Sanctions on China under the guise of human rights is a tool to damage China economically.

Present one that's supported by evidence.

Again, you seem to think that world events didn't happen because you can't believe they happened. At the same time you entertain that something else might have happened purely because you can construct a motive in your head.

What some random person on the internet can and can't believe has utterly no bearing on what actually happened.

ShatterAlan · 20-05-2021 1:32am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Do you not see that you are comparing like with like and confusing the point you are trying to make? Bloody Sunday was called out for what it was, as was Ballymurphy. The British denied, the truth came out. Salisbury has also been called out for what it was. The Russians denied it….

What are you talking about?

You are completely missing the point. Prior to Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy or Tonkin or WMDs there was a narrative. That narrative has since been disgraced and discredited.

The narrative of the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six is that they were guilty and there was no other alternative......except there was.

Are you trying to posit that a STATE was accused and so must be different from a cadre?

You talk of Russia denying involvement as if that fingers them while British admission somehow exculpates a conspiracy on their part. Are these really the crumbs you are putting on the table or perhaps better still on the floor under it.?

Britain were called out and denied these crimes for decades. These coverups. My question to you that you so deftly avoided was, in response to your question about people not speaking out for so long "whistleblowers, witnesses, doubters, etc" have been calling into question the aforementioned episodes NOT for 5 years or 6 years but for nearly 50 years. So you see, if you think that 5 or 6 years is so long for someone to try and open the box you might want to think again about state collusion and the ability to let it rot until the truth is no longer even interesting.

On top of that, you and some fellow travellers continue to use the argument to "incredulity" angle.

This is one of the worst methods of defense. Throw that in front of a judge and you will be not laughed at but berated.

The little boy doesn't believe that the Emperor is wearing invisible robes? "Incredulity"! Just because he doesn't believe it doesn't make it untrue? Right?

Are you going to now demand of the little boy "Well what EVIDENCE do you have to prove otherwise? What's the alternative? You can't explain so your points AND your doubts are moot."

If you think that forcing someone to believe something legitemizes it then that's your bag. Your angle. I don't believe for a second many things. And you stamping your feet and saying that my disbelief is inconsequestial is meaningless. I have not tried to prove alternatives to what you take on faith other than to express that I don't believe it.

I'm really sorry that you don't like that.

You took it upon yourself to believe something that I don't. I can't prove you wrong but I just don't believe what you do.

I don't believe the Salisbury story. You do
I don't believe that Russia invaded Crimea and now they are all living under the Soviet jackboot. You do.
I don't believe that Venezeulans are so impoverished that they have to eat flamingoes. You do.
I don't believe that Ghaddafi prescribed viagra to his army so that they would have erections in order to rape woman and children. I would hope that you don't believe that. Is my doubt regarding such a cynical and abyssmal report unfounded? After all it was an official narrative. I don't believe it. Does that make it untrue?

I don't believe (nor did I back then) that Bashar Al Assad bombed innocent civilians with chlorine? Did you? Maybe.

I don't believe that Mexicans are crossing the border and all they are doing is robbing and raping? But again that's the narrative. Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean that Jose and Juan aren't pinning down Beth and Caitlin and raping them? Right.

Incredulity

Fighting Tao · 20-05-2021 9:13am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What are you talking about?

You are completely missing the point. Prior to Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy or Tonkin or WMDs there was a narrative. That narrative has since been disgraced and discredited.

The narrative of the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six is that they were guilty and there was no other alternative......except there was.

Are you trying to posit that a STATE was accused and so must be different from a cadre?

You talk of Russia denying involvement as if that fingers them while British admission somehow exculpates a conspiracy on their part. Are these really the crumbs you are putting on the table or perhaps better still on the floor under it.?

Britain were called out and denied these crimes for decades. These coverups. My question to you that you so deftly avoided was, in response to your question about people not speaking out for so long "whistleblowers, witnesses, doubters, etc" have been calling into question the aforementioned episodes NOT for 5 years or 6 years but for nearly 50 years. So you see, if you think that 5 or 6 years is so long for someone to try and open the box you might want to think again about state collusion and the ability to let it rot until the truth is no longer even interesting.

On top of that, you and some fellow travellers continue to use the argument to "incredulity" angle.

This is one of the worst methods of defense. Throw that in front of a judge and you will be not laughed at but berated.

The little boy doesn't believe that the Emperor is wearing invisible robes? "Incredulity"! Just because he doesn't believe it doesn't make it untrue? Right?

Are you going to now demand of the little boy "Well what EVIDENCE do you have to prove otherwise? What's the alternative? You can't explain so your points AND your doubts are moot."

If you think that forcing someone to believe something legitemizes it then that's your bag. Your angle. I don't believe for a second many things. And you stamping your feet and saying that my disbelief is inconsequestial is meaningless. I have not tried to prove alternatives to what you take on faith other than to express that I don't believe it.

I'm really sorry that you don't like that.

You took it upon yourself to believe something that I don't. I can't prove you wrong but I just don't believe what you do.

I don't believe the Salisbury story. You do
I don't believe that Russia invaded Crimea and now they are all living under the Soviet jackboot. You do.
I don't believe that Venezeulans are so impoverished that they have to eat flamingoes. You do.
I don't believe that Ghaddafi prescribed viagra to his army so that they would have erections in order to rape woman and children. I would hope that you don't believe that. Is my doubt regarding such a cynical and abyssmal report unfounded? After all it was an official narrative. I don't believe it. Does that make it untrue?

I don't believe (nor did I back then) that Bashar Al Assad bombed innocent civilians with chlorine? Did you? Maybe.

I don't believe that Mexicans are crossing the border and all they are doing is robbing and raping? But again that's the narrative. Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean that Jose and Juan aren't pinning down Beth and Caitlin and raping them? Right.

Incredulity

If you make coherent points then people wouldn’t miss your point. Talking in riddles rather than saying what you mean is odd. Basic communication means that the sender of a message is responsible for phrasing it in a clear and concise manner. What I said still stands, and you argued that the British denied wrongdoing etc and was proven that they were on the wrong and it took up to 40 years for the British state to admit it even though the evidence was there that any reasonable person couldn’t argue against. The same is happening with the Russians and Salisbury. The evidence is there and they deny culpability.

Dohnjoe · 20-05-2021 10:47am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What are you talking about?

You are completely missing the point. Prior to Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy or Tonkin or WMDs there was a narrative. That narrative has since been disgraced and discredited.

The narrative of the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six is that they were guilty and there was no other alternative......except there was.

You've cherry picked examples from history where an administration lied or was deceptive

And you use that to support that an administration (Putin) is not lying about this incident

I don't know where to start with that backwards logic

I don't believe that Mexicans are crossing the border and all they are doing is robbing and raping? But again that's the narrative. Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean that Jose and Juan aren't pinning down Beth and Caitlin and raping them? Right.

Incredulity

More misunderstanding here. You expressing disbelief at the Salisbury poisonings is a valid argument that it didn't happen.

The Skripal Salisbury Spooks

Comments