[ingliz]

facts

In 2013, the OPCW's Scientific Advisory Board states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of 'novichoks'.

Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB [Scientific Advisory Board] makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”.

Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on Developments in Science and Technology for The Third Review Conference 27 March 2013

In 2016, Dr Robin Black who sits on the Scientific Advisory Board of the OPCW, and was until recently head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Porton Down), the laboratory which confirmed novichok was the nerve agent used in Salisbury, says the same.

In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.

Dr. R. M. Black, Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents, Chemical Warfare Toxicology: Volume 1 (R.S.C. 2016).

[skinster]

Israel has extensive stocks of chemical weapons but has always refused to declare any of them to the OPCW. Israel is not a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention nor a member of the OPCW. Israel signed in 1993 but refused to ratify as this would mean inspection and destruction of its chemical weapons. Israel undoubtedly has as much technical capacity as any state to synthesise “Novichoks”.

So according to the OPCW, it's more likely that Israel is responsible rather than Russia? Take that, @layman

[Nonsense]

Lets place this latest event in it's proper context politically.

Russia has 'traitors', as do most countries it is fair to say.

Why is it then, that the 'TORY' government has received these oligarchs, along with the accrued riches, the legacy of the downfall of the USSR?

It's because those corrupt oligarchs have donated vast amounts of cash to 'TORY' Party funds, a party that does it's utmost to obscure the sources of it's funding.

Alongside these oligarchs are the traitors, that have become too narcissistic for their own good & have escaped the consequences for their actions in Russia by coming here.

FACT, the 'TORY' government,as mentioned above,has vested interest in Russian 'TRAITORS',whom they use to extract intel from them,by 'debriefing' them.

When the process is complete, all useful information has been collected,unless the government finds a good reason to support these people for the rest of their lives,the economic option would be to 'dispatch' them & what better way than to 'kill-two-birds-with-one-stone' .
All they need to do is to obtain the nerve agent from Porton Down,use it on that guy & blame PUTIN for it.
It's a FACT,that the 'TORY' government will NOT accede the Kremlin request for EVIDENCE,therefore,the 'TORY' government(as usual) is acting against international law in witholding evidence.
As such it is open to counter-allegations,they are conspiring against international order of law,by circumventing the legal process.

The logical conclusion is that there is no evidence & the case is based upon political prejudice levelled against Mr PUTIN prior to the Russian elections in the hope of damaging him politically.

The 'TORY' government is compounding their felony by threatening sanctions against wealthy Russians in the UK.
Jeremy CORBYN is absolutely CORRECT in his stance, the 'TORY' government is acting outside of the law,they WILL be brought to book by no less than the British public at the next election.

[Ganeshas Rat]

I want to agree with you all guys and say "Yes giving all the evidences it's more probable that Russia did it, much more probable so I will be objective and blame Russia with you". But damn... Fucking novichok. I've never heard of it but it's ok, I am not interested much in weapons generally so I could miss a lot of important things. But they literally said: "It's super secret, we didn't even know if it existed but the tests prove that's novichok because science".

...What?

Isn't the sense of the word 'secret' means that you can't compare a secret thing to anything because you don't know what to compare? Or they compared this gas to all known gases and said: "Ok, we don't know what it is so let's suppose it's novichok."

It doesn't mean that I consider Russia to be innocent, as I said I tend to think it's very probably that Russia is guilty of it, there is a motive, there is a weapon, there is a possibility, but I definitely believe less to what British politicians say because they say illogical shit that would make Chernomyrdin proud of them. So I will not believe even that Russia is somehow responsible for the state of that police officer. If Brits are such idiots then it's more than possible to believe they poisoned the officer themselves. Why? And why they even remembered the word "novichok"? Idiots.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It's a FACT,that the 'TORY' government will NOT accede the Kremlin request for EVIDENCE,therfore,the 'TORY' government(as usual) is acting against international law in witholding evidence.

I've heard this more than once, but without any attempt to explain this bit of international law. Can you (or someone else) point to it, please?

[skinster]

[noir]

@Nonsense

Someone mentioned Israel? It's doubtful they bother with these obscure agents. But in the past Israel did use poisoning. The greatest of all, though it's just speculation and nothning ever comfired, it's Yasser Arafat. If indeed they did, bless them.

[skinster]

^ See @layman

[noir]

Mossad did it

[skinster]

[Nonsense]

I've heard this more than once, but without any attempt to explain this bit of international law. Can you (or someone else) point to it, please?

The relevant Convention places general legal obligations on all the signatory countries to never engage in acts of terrorism involving chemicals.
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(OPCW),including use of such weapons against civilians.

Article's 6 & 7

Paragraph 3.4(b)

"Measures to improve, where necessary, the framework & the arrangements necessary for appropriate legal cooperation
between Member States( for example, to facilitate extradition or other mutual legal assistance in the investigation or prosecution of crimes involving chemical weapons when a suspect, an item of evidence , or a witness, are at a location under the jurisdiction of a Member State)".

ALL such Conventions have legal force internationally through the UN, which is a law-making body on the international scale.

RUSSIA should take the UK to court for it's refusal to meet it's LEGAL OBLIGATIONS under the above Convention.

It's clear that Russia or any of it's citizens(who would-justifiably-now not be extradited)would NOT now receive justice in any court of law in the U.K, because Theresa MAY has flouted the legal obligations to provide the 'evidence' requested by RUSSIA.
The FACT that RUSSIA is already found 'guilty' after 'trial-by-media', by the GROSS sub-human western political leaders, WITHOUT a scintilla of EVIDENCE by way of PROOF is reprehensible.

For those reasons alone, Jeremy CORBYN is the ONLY politician following the 'process-of-law', in this particular case.

[Atlantis]

Nonsense wrote:
It's a FACT,that the 'TORY' government will NOT accede the Kremlin request for EVIDENCE,therfore,the 'TORY' government(as usual) is acting against international law in witholding evidence.

I've heard this more than once, but without any attempt to explain this bit of international law. Can you (or someone else) point to it, please?

I don't think it has anything to do with law. The Brits don't want to reveal what they know about the nerve agent. And the Russians don't want to reveal what they know about their own nerve agents. Each side is trying to push the other to reveal its knowledge.

The British have now come under pressure to submit their sample to the OPCW because their story is full of holes and doesn't make any sense. To preempt further criticism, Boris Johnson has now said they were going to send a sample, but he didn't say when.

The strategy seems to be to score in the propaganda war against the Russians while withholding the sample for as long as possible, or indefinitely. He will find a pretext for not sending it.

What happened is that:

- The Russians destroyed their known chemical weapons under the OPCW last year.

- That puts the Americans under pressure to do the same with their stock, which they don't want to do.

- To divert attention, somebody delivers what is allegedly a toxin from a batch of Russian Novichoks for identification to an address near Porton Down to make sure the toxin gets to the UK's lab for chemical weapons quickly before it can degrade.

- Now, the West can say: "the evil Russians have Novichoks they didn't even declare, what's all that hypocrisy about destroying their chemical weapons?"

- The Russians reply by saying: "we don't have Novichoks, so we can't give you Novichoks, but since the Brits have Novichoks they are under a legal obligation to submit a sample to the OPCW."

Whoever came up with this plan to point the finger at the Russians didn't think this through very carefully, because the Russians can just sit and wait for the Brits to produce some evidence, which won't be conclusive anyways.

I don't thing the British government planned this. They opportunistically went for the propaganda war without thinking it through. This could end badly for Theresa May unless it is buried beneath the next international crisis. They know they can't prove that this is Russian.

What about poor of Skripal and his daughter? Collateral! The little guys always are.

[Nonsense]

I don't think it has anything to do with law. The Brits don't want to reveal what they know about the nerve agent. And the Russians don't want to reveal what they know about their own nerve agents. Each side is trying to push the other to reveal its knowledge.

The British have now come under pressure to submit their sample to the OPCW because their story is full of holes and doesn't make any sense. To preempt further criticism, Boris Johnson has now said they were going to send a sample, but he didn't say when.

The strategy seems to be to score in the propaganda war against the Russians while withholding the sample for as long as possible, or indefinitely. He will find a pretext for not sending it.

What happened is that:

- The Russians destroyed their known chemical weapons under the OPCW last year.

- That puts the Americans under pressure to do the same with their stock, which they don't want to do.

- To divert attention, somebody delivers what is allegedly a toxin from a batch of Russian Novichoks for identification to an address near Porton Down to make sure the toxin gets to the UK's lab for chemical weapons quickly before it can degrade.

- Now, the West can say: "the evil Russians have Novichoks they didn't even declare, what's all that hypocrisy about destroying their chemical weapons?"

- The Russians reply by saying: "we don't have Novichoks, so we can't give you Novichoks, but since the Brits have Novichoks they are under a legal obligation to submit a sample to the OPCW."

Whoever came up with this plan to point the finger at the Russians didn't think this through very carefully, because the Russians can just sit and wait for the Brits to produce some evidence, which won't be conclusive anyways.

I don't thing the British government planned this. They opportunistically went for the propaganda war without thinking it through. This could end badly for Theresa May unless it is buried beneath the next international crisis. They know they can't prove that this is Russian.

What about poor of Skripal and his daughter? Collateral! The little guys always are.

I agree with your points on Russia 'sitting' on it, knowing this country will not supply the 'evidence', also the injustice to the 3 victims.
I do not believe that a court case can proceed now in any case.

Russia will not extradite anyone, because Britain has failed in it's legal obligations, also that failure could lead to Porton Down being accused of fabricating evidence, by producing the nerve agent itself.

The failure to submit evidence to Russia has literally destroyed the case against them.

Lastly, those Western 'leaders' backing Theresa MAY, are ALL political dregs, MAY included, ALL of them cannot command a 'majority' government.
What does that tell you about the state of 'democracy', when compared to the alternatives?

[foxdemon]

The relevant Convention places general legal obligations on all the signatory countries to never engage in acts of terrorism involving chemicals.
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(OPCW),including use of such weapons against civilians.

Article's 6 & 7

Paragraph 3.4(b)

"Measures to improve, where necessary, the framework & the arrangements necessary for appropriate legal cooperation
between Member States( for example, to facilitate extradition or other mutual legal assistance in the investigation or prosecution of crimes involving chemical weapons when a suspect, an item of evidence , or a witness, are at a location under the jurisdiction of a Member State)".

ALL such Conventions have legal force internationally through the UN, which is a law-making body on the international scale.

RUSSIA should take the UK to court for it's refusal to meet it's LEGAL OBLIGATIONS under the above Convention.

It's clear that Russia or any of it's citizens(who would-justifiably-now not be extradited)would NOT now receive justice in any court of law in the U.K, because Theresa MAY has flouted the legal obligations to provide the 'evidence' requested by RUSSIA.
The FACT that RUSSIA is already found 'guilty' after 'trial-by-media', by the GROSS sub-human western political leaders, WITHOUT a scintilla of EVIDENCE by way of PROOF is reprehensible.

For those reasons alone, Jeremy CORBYN is the ONLY politician following the 'process-of-law', in this particular case.

You still haven’t shown how the UK has acted outside the treaty. What you quoted says ‘measures to improve coperation’. It doesn’t say treaty members are compelled to provide evidence to the alleged offender.


Let’s not forget that Russia stands accused of violating the treaty by using chemical agents. Now which nation has violated the treaty? Would you support a situation like this: someone steals a car, next day in court they get to be the judge and so decide which evidence is permissible. In legal proceedings it is not normal for the accused to also be the judge.


Last time the Russians conducted an assassination in Britain, it took 10 years for the investigation to conclude the Russia was responsible. They have been charged but the Russians refuse to allow their extradition to the UK to face trial. Who is disregarding law?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-latest-kremlin-denies-involvement-in-spy-poisoning/2018/03/12/6490cd38-25eb-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.9d6aca132eeb

....

Former Russian security officers who were charged in Britain with the 2006 slaying of an ex-Russian agent have scoffed at the claims of Russian involvement in the poisoning of another former spy in the U.K.


Britain has charged Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun with involvement in the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, who died after drinking tea containing radioactive polonium. They have denied the charges and remain in Russia.

Lugovoi and Kovtun said in remarks carried Monday by Russia’s Interfax news agency that the British claims over the recent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter are unsubstantiated.

Lugovoi, now a member of the Russian parliament, said British Prime Minister Theresa May’s statement blaming Russia was “irresponsible.”

....

Now a member of the Russian parliament!



Why do the British love people who hate them? Why condemn yourselves and validate your Enemies? Corbin epitomises that strange mentality. God help Britain if Corbyn, your favourite apologist, becomes PM.

[Atlantis]

So, why has Russian businessman and crook Nikolai Glushkov been killed by strangulation? Did the FSB run out of Novichoks? The Independent has the theory that the Russians have been ruined by trying to bribing the Tories.

Like in every good joke, there is a core truth to that idea. I don't know what the going rate for Novichoks is on the black market these days. But they must cost a bundle - together with the Chechnen Mafia for the delivery service - that's bound to be a price tag even the average oligarch isn't likely to fork out on a regular basis.

As to the greed of the Tories and the neocons, there seems to be no end to it. One of the oligarchs exiled in London complained the other day that he was down on his last 250 million. It breaks my heart to think just how tough that must be.

[noir]

The Independent has the theory that the Russians have been ruined by trying to bribing the Tories.

The Independent is Russian owned paper

Lebedev buys Independent newspapers
Russian billionaire finalises months of negotiations by buying papers for £1 from Independent News & Media

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... newspapers

[Atlantis]

Yeah, no wonder the Russians at The Independent feel sore about being taken to the cleaners by the Tories.

It's amazing when you look at the number of Russian crooks that got "political asylum" in the UK. Even for the Americans, Litvinenko was too dirty to give him asylum. The Brits invite all these crooks and then wonder why they start killing each other ...

Litvinenko and the Demise of British Justice

Meanwhile others have to take care of the war refugees from British wars. In the UK, human rights exist for oligarchs and crooks but not for war refugees.

[noir]

BTW, Nazis buy papers in Israel (like Haaretz, bought by Dumont family) so they can quote "Jews" to judtify their pathetic miseries. It's known tactic

[Nonsense]

"foxdemon-
"You still haven’t shown how the UK has acted outside the treaty. What you quoted says ‘measures to improve coperation’. It doesn’t say treaty members are compelled to provide evidence to the alleged offender.

See below(*)

Nonsense-
Of course it doesn't say what you 'think' it should say.

It says what I have quoted,can you not understand that?

"The relevant Convention places general legal obligations on all the signatory countries to never engage in acts of terrorism involving chemicals.
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(OPCW),including use of such weapons against civilians".

foxdemon-
"You still haven’t shown how the UK has acted outside the treaty"

Nonsense-
It is NOT a 'Treaty', it is a 'Convention', with 'legal' obligations.

Nonsense;
Again, you either haven't read it, or you fail to understand the meaning within the language. -

(*)"Measures to improve, where necessary, the framework & the arrangements necessary for appropriate legal cooperation
between Member States( for example, to facilitate extradition or other mutual legal assistance in the investigation or prosecution of crimes involving chemical weapons when a suspect, an item of evidence , or a witness, are at a location under the jurisdiction of a Member State)".

Nonsense=Read the above words carefully,it encapsulates the duties on all the signatory States in circumstances such as this discussed incident.

foxdemon-
Let’s not forget that Russia stands accused of violating the treaty by using chemical agents. Now which nation has violated the treaty? Would you support a situation like this: someone steals a car, next day in court they get to be the judge and so decide which evidence is permissible. In legal proceedings it is not normal for the accused to also be the judge.

Nonsense-
Any country or person can level accusations against another, PROVING such things is DIFFICULT & NOTHING HAS YET BEEN PROVEN.
RUSSIA requested mutual cooperation(as per Convention obligations)from the U.K, to provide 'evidence' so that they can assist the U.K in their 'investigations', they have been refused such request, there is now a 'prima facie' case for prosecuting
the U.K, should RUSSIA feel necessary to do so.

NOT 'cooperating' with a signatory country, IS outside of ALL signatories LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.

foxdemon-

Last time the Russians conducted an assassination in Britain, it took 10 years for the investigation to conclude the Russia was responsible. They have been charged but the Russians refuse to allow their extradition to the UK to face trial. Who is disregarding law?

Nonsense-
For the very same reason that the USA also ignores them.

An 'investigation' is not a 'legal' determination by a court of law.
Yes, Do politicians not send virtually everything on their political plates into the 'long grass' when it suits them?

foxdemon-
Now a member of the Russian parliament!

Nonsense- ?


foxdemon-
Why do the British love people who hate them?

Nonsense- There's neither rhyme nor reason to that, anymore than why we let millions of people into the country who love to hate us, even when we give our national treasure & indebt ourselves to help them by the £ BILLIONS.

foxdemon-
Why condemn yourselves and validate your Enemies?

Nonsense=
We 'condemn ourselves when we ignore the process of law, because then, we are no better than them whom we accuse, we are then both acting OUTSIDE OF THE LAW.

foxdemon-
Corbin epitomises that strange mentality. God help Britain if Corbyn, your favourite apologist, becomes PM.

Nonsense-
Tell me of a politician without a 'strange mentality'.

There is no 'God' FULL STOP.
CORBYN is not my 'favourite apologist', BUT ,he is correct on his stance on the LAW being allowed to work in this case.

[noir]

@foxdemon @Nonsense

It something to do with imperial legacy. They were brought up to believe they have some patronizing responsibilities toward those who had not the gracious opportunity to be born British. Recently, there is an interesting book about the subject "Treason of the heart" by David Pryce-Jones