[noemon]

I never cease to be amazed that some on pofo's hatred for capitalism, western leadership, or whatever else makes them so willing to imagine that other states must therefore be the good guys. There are no good guys. Everyone is a villain. The only innocent people are the powerless, and the powerless do not run Russia.

You might be surprised to hear that border countries have a history of being pawns and the target practice areas of great powers and that most of the people there are fully aware that they are just cannon fodder in the event of a west vs russia war. To ask from the people in the front lines to literally die by actively supporting a flare up that would see themselves in the line of fire on the basis of flimsy evidence and partisan politics is not just silly but a whole list of things. If you want to fight Russia because you are so convinced that she is a threat to your way of life you are more than welcome to go join some kind of volunteer corps and lay your life down for your cause but asking from John to lay his own life down willingly for your politics while you are sipping cocktails in Miami is another story altogether and one would expect from the new breed of American cultural imperialists to show a bit more nuance after the fuck ups in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

[mikema63]

1.) Admitting that russia did something like this is not me being the one supporting a flare up.

2.) Just because I'm pretty convinced Russia is behind this attack by no means means I support war.

3.) Bringing up the fact that innocent people would die in a war does not justify pretending reality doesn't exist.

4.) simply stating that the evidence is flimsy and something something partisanship doesn't make it true.

5.) It also doesn't make it any less conspiratorial when you ignore the thousands of people who would have to be in on this and that it would necessarily have to be a false flag attack killing someone for the explicit purpose of framing russia to, apparently in your mind, start a war that the west is ill equipped to wage. Just because you are handwaving the evidence as "flimsy" or "partisan" doesn't mean I wont notice the implied conspiracy that would have to exist.

[noemon]

It also doesn't make it any less conspiratorial when you ignore the thousands of people who would have to be in on this and that it would necessarily have to be a false flag attack killing someone for the explicit purpose of framing russia to, apparently in your mind, start a war that the west is ill equipped to wage. Just because you are handwaving the evidence as "flimsy" or "partisan" doesn't mean I wont notice the implied conspiracy that would have to exist.

This is a straw-man argument. If the UK has evidence that Russia is behind this they are more than welcome to hand over the evidence to the Hague and let justice be done. Why do you not support the independent authority of the Hague to settle the matter instead of your own feelings based on your partisan politics?

Also in pretending that thousands of people are required to assassinate some Russia double-spy and for NATO countries to express solidarity among themselves against Russia which is the very reason of existence of NATO.

[foxdemon]

You might be surprised to hear that border countries have a history of being pawns and the target practice areas of great powers and that most of the people there are fully aware that they are just cannon fodder in the event of a west vs russia war. To ask from the people in the front lines to literally die by actively supporting a flare up that would see themselves in the line of fire on the basis of flimsy evidence and partisan politics is not just silly but a whole list of things. If you want to fight Russia because you are so convinced that she is a threat to your way of life you are more than welcome to go join some kind of volunteer corps and lay your life down for your cause but asking from John to lay his own life down willingly for your politics while you are sipping cocktails in Miami is another story altogether and one would expect from the new breed of American cultural imperialists to show a bit more nuance after the fuck ups in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Front line countries, like Latvia, are showing their support. They are hoping this will be a wake up call for the UK and USA.

http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/latest-news/59437-latvia-condemns-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-the-attack-in-salisbury-on-4-march


The problem is, as I see it, will the UK and USA abandon loyal allies when it suits them? If the West wants to retain its influence, it has to look after its friends. The Russians understand this and will go a long way to make sure their allies know they can count on Russia. It is sensible.

[noemon]

Front line countries, like Latvia, are showing their support. They are hoping this will be a wake up call for the UK and USA.
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/latest-news/59437-latvia-condemns-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-the-attack-in-salisbury-on-4-march
The problem is, as I see it, will the UK and USA abandon loyal allies when it suits them? If the West wants to retain its influence, it has to look after its friends. The Russians understand this and will go a long way to make sure their allies know they can count on Russia. It is sensible.

Of course their administrations are because they rely on NATO to protect them and must toe the line of NATO at all times without miss. But John is a private citizen not beholden by these terms and conditions and he ain't stupid just like most people in those countries are not stupid.

After Yugoslavia with the US/UK bombing their WW allies to support Islamist extremists, currently abandoning the Kurds to the hands of Turkey and ISIS and the US/UK green light for Turkey to invade Cyprus, one must truly be soft in the head to trust anything the US/UK do. One can be certain though that if a western country or people are facing an Islamist threat the US and the UK will stand 100% with the Islamist threat against them and then go around screeching about the refugees they created not being treated well enough by those hospitalising them. Erdogan threatened to invade a NATO ally like a couple of weeks ago after securing a deal to buy fighter jets from the UK, while receiving F-35's from the US and S-400 from Russia. That is not strengthening Putin at all according to Mikema, no of course not. Putin can sell weapons to NATO countries which is forbidden by the NATO charter and both Putin and the NATO country that bought them can get away with it. But yeah let's be outraged by the death of some double-spy.

[JohnRawls]

1.) Admitting that russia did something like this is not me being the one supporting a flare up.

2.) Just because I'm pretty convinced Russia is behind this attack by no means means I support war.

3.) Bringing up the fact that innocent people would die in a war does not justify pretending reality doesn't exist.

4.) simply stating that the evidence is flimsy and something something partisanship doesn't make it true.

5.) It also doesn't make it any less conspiratorial when you ignore the thousands of people who would have to be in on this and that it would necessarily have to be a false flag attack killing someone for the explicit purpose of framing russia to, apparently in your mind, start a war that the west is ill equipped to wage. Just because you are handwaving the evidence as "flimsy" or "partisan" doesn't mean I wont notice the implied conspiracy that would have to exist.

1) If there is no clear evidence provided than blaming Russia as a knee jerk reaction is not going to be a positive solution in the long run. I am not saying Russia did not do it, i am saying Russia is not the only country capable of doing it. There are too many negative effects for Russia and too many positive effects for countries that have issues with Russia nowadays.

2) Being " Pretty convinced " is not good enough if there is no evidence.

3) True. But we have overlooked things that were far far worse when it suited us. Doesn't mean we have to do it this time, but it also doesn't mean that Russia did it.

4) Well it also means that Russia might not have done it.

5) Britain has to blame somebody. Attack happened on its soil, Russia is an easy target, everyone will bite even if it wasn't Russia. Yeah, for Britain there are no downsides i guess.

[blackjack21]

Which makes my first sentence stand: Putin and his team do not manage the situation well.

That may be the case, but NATO, the US and EU haven't managed it well either. Even their own citizenry do not want what their hated leadership is offering. So I do not finding it surprising that other areas of the world do not want it either. I don't remember a whole lot of sanctions being done against individual persons until the Obama administration in the United States. Maybe someone can set me straight on that. I remember some arms dealers getting flagged, like Adnan Khashogi back in the day. It's not that the powers weren't there to do it, but it seems like they embarked on a new experiment in foreign policy that has had a lot of consequences they did not expect. When the actions were against a state as a whole, the group punishment effect, though brutal, ended with the state reigning in the actions of individuals. With the sanctions being against individuals, the state and the population at large are not so interested. I think part of why they embarked on that course is that in fighting Al Qaeda, they were already fighting against an entity in sixty different countries that was comprised of individuals, or non-state actors. So they transposed the model for fighting Al Qaeda--which wasn't going that well by the way--to fighting Russian oligarchs.

So let's say the Russians did hack the DNC servers, for example. We already have on fairly strong suspicion that it was Seth Rich who actually did it using a USB drive from within the DNC. Maybe he was paid off by the Russians. Who knows. I rather doubt that he was killed by Russians. I think that was an American hit against a US citizen--someone with ties to the deep state and the DNC. It's hard to understand the moral outrage of Theresa May, when the US Democratic Party does exactly the same thing for people disloyal to their party. It's hard to understand May's moral outrage when her own "former" MI-6 operative Christopher Steele was trying to influence a US election and get a US president impeached.

Is the UK handling these things well? I mean they recently detained Lauren Southern for fuck sake. This is a country that once controlled 25% of the world's land mass and today in spite of investing in two aircraft carriers the government of the UK is afraid of a 20-something blonde Canadian girl conducting interviews with disaffected political factions in the UK who do not pledge their fealty to Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems and publishing the same on YouTube. Is that the real face of terrorism today, or do these deep state actors have some real problems of their own? Many of them likely mental health-related and probably struggles with sexual identity and drug and alcohol dependence I would wager.

Today, Julian Assange is effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, because the way the deep state addresses people they don't like is through generally orthogonal collateral attacks like suggesting Julian Assange is a rapist and changing the subject from the fact that he spent time exposing deep state in the West. His method of operation was to use the protections afforded to journalism while other actors such as anonymous and others did the hacking of government servers in the West.

So I find it puzzling how a "former" Russian spy gets killed where the speculation surrounding the motive for his death is that he was a "source" for a "former" MI-6 spy who compiled a dossier that was part of an effort to discredit Donald Trump, which has now evolved into a Trump-is-a-Russian-Agent meme and consumed millions of US taxpayer resources and the only meaningful prosecution thus far is against Paul Manafort who did some work for a Ukrainian politician who was friendly to Russia rather than the ambitions of the US, EU and NATO.

Again, I'm not saying your criticism of Putin isn't well founded, but it seems to me like deep state actors in the UK and the US have fucked up to an absolutely extraordinary degree and do not come in for the same criticism.

That is kidna my point. Russia knew they would get blamed one way or the other. So i do not see why a retired spy on pension is worth all of this. Even if he helped with the dossier, then what is the point to do it now.

It's just as plausible that it's the American state. Rex Tillerson went along with Teresa May's moral outrage, which apparently doesn't extend to her own "former" foreign agents meddling in US elections.

Exactly, at this point, Jeremy Corbyn is the only politician with integrity in the UK. He was one of a small number of Labour MPs opposing the Iraq war. History has proven him right, yet he is once again vilified by a cross-party campaign of neocon war hawks and the general public that is driven into a jingoistic frenzy by the British press.

Is it the country as a whole? In the US, more than half the population doesn't believe our news outlets anymore. Here in the US, there are a bunch of cranks who think Trump is a Russian agent, but they are people who's tribal identity is the Democratic Party. The biggest political faction in the US today is independents. The Republicans and Democrats are both a minority, and that's why they feign "bipartisanship" once in awhile, and usually in a way that doesn't suit the needs of the American people.

1. If the chemical weapons lab at Porton Down can identify the substance as a Novichok-type nerve agent, then the lab has its structural formula and can produce this nerve agent a mere 6 miles from the site of the incident. Hence, Theresa May is lying. The substance can come from the UK and many other countries.

That much is certain. Heck, even the Syrians can do it.

3. If the UK has Novichok toxins, then the UK is in violation of international law and not Russia, as Theresa May claims.

Again, why I say that trying to base foreign policy on "morals" and "moral outrage" is destabilizing.

6. Neocon war hawks also have a long record of extra-judicial killings by drones and other means.

They have a tendency to do that in the US too. Several DNC staffers died during the 2016 election under mysterious circumstances, and we're all meant to believe that these unlikely and untimely deaths clustered around a political campaign have no correlation, rhyme or reason.

That opposing groups of oligarchs or criminals kill each other is the most ordinary thing in the world.

That is also true.

Possibly they later decided they wanted to intimidate other Russians who might work for their enemies. It's not that they have some idea of 'justice', that involves killing him because they think the 'correct' state for him is 'dead'; they want to let others know that they still kill people for going against the Russian state.

Maybe. It might also be the American state for attempting to take down a US president based on a phony Russian dossier. Although, I doubt the US would use chemical weapons like that. He'd probably die of a heart attack from too much cocaine or something.

We will be shown to be largely impotent because we wont and can't take serious actions against the Russian state except at worst more sanctions which he could just threaten to cut off the gas to Europe over.

He already has them over a barrel so to speak.

...and one would expect from the new breed of American cultural imperialists to show a bit more nuance after the fuck ups in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Well stated.

5.) It also doesn't make it any less conspiratorial when you ignore the thousands of people who would have to be in on this and that it would necessarily have to be a false flag attack killing someone for the explicit purpose of framing russia to, apparently in your mind, start a war that the west is ill equipped to wage. Just because you are handwaving the evidence as "flimsy" or "partisan" doesn't mean I wont notice the implied conspiracy that would have to exist.

Considering that's the entire purpose of the CIA and MI6, the idea that thousands of people might be involved in some sort of orchestration is not out of the question at all, and it's not even remotely cuckoo. The US and UK spend billions of dollars on this sort of activity.

[Vanasalus]

After Yugoslavia with the US/UK bombing their WW allies to support Islamist extremists, currently abandoning the Kurds to the hands of Turkey and ISIS and the US/UK green light for Turkey to invade Cyprus, one must truly be soft in the head to trust anything the US/UK do. One can be certain though that if a western country or people are facing an Islamist threat the US and the UK will stand 100% with the Islamist threat against them and then go around screeching about the refugees they created not being treated well enough by those hospitalising them. Erdogan threatened to invade a NATO ally like a couple of weeks ago after securing a deal to buy fighter jets from the UK, while receiving F-35's from the US and S-400 from Russia. That is not strengthening Putin at all according to Mikema, no of course not. Putin can sell weapons to NATO countries which is forbidden by the NATO charter and both Putin and the NATO country that bought them can get away with it. But yeah let's be outraged by the death of some double-spy.

I sense, based on the tone of your posts, anti-Turkish hysteria in Greek media is high nowadays. Please enlighten me what you think we have done to provoke Greece again.

"abandoning the Kurds to the hands of Turkey and ISIS ".... Excuse me, but am I the only person around here ISIS militants were escorted out of Raqqa in to safe-havens under US control. Where are those 15-20 thousand ISIS militants now?

Turkish forces have a large number of Arabic-speaking POWs caught in Afrin, testifying they were ISIS militants from Deir ez-Zor before and they were enlisted into YPG in order to win their freedom.

Please spare me from the fairy-tales of "War against ISIS" and how YPG was instrumental in that fight.

Last but not least.... The purchase of Russian S400s and NATO membership... Last time I look, Greece has been operating Russian S300 defense system in Crete for past 20 years.

[noemon]

I sense, based on the tone of your posts, anti-Turkish hysteria in Greek media is high nowadays. Please enlighten me what you think we have done to provoke Greece again.

Turkey has rammed a Greek coastguard boat, literally kidnapped 2 Greek boys lost in a snowstorm accusing them of spying while wearing military clothing. Both Erdogan and the opposition have threatened to invade Greece and yet here you are trying to apologise for this warmongering.

Turkish forces have a large number of Arabic-speaking POWs caught in Afrin, testifying they were ISIS militants from Deir ez-Zor before and they were enlisted into YPG in order to win their freedom.

Accusing the Kurds of enlisting ISIS is quite funny but I don't think anyone believes these Turkish stories mate. You have invaded another country to ethnic-cleanse the Kurds from foreign soil, the same Kurds that were instrumental in destroying ISIS which you were propping up.

Last but not least.... The purchase of Russian S400s and NATO membership... Last time I look, Greece has been operating Russian S300 defense system in Crete for past 20 years.

Of course, but Greece did not buy the S300, she was given it for free from Cyprus because Turkey threatened to invade Cyprus if Cyprus puts the S300 on its soil. Cyprus is not in NATO and has every right to buy whatever systems it feels will provide security to its citizens and is very well justified considering that 30,000 Turkish soldiers illegally occupy its soil. Not wanting to be invaded, Cyprus, Greece and NATO agreed that Greece will store the system in order not to offend Turkey. And the S300 have since been integrated into NATO's defence teaching NATO how to break the system. Greece did not breach any NATO rules and she did not buy any Russian systems, Erdogan is flagrantly breaching NATO rules by making deals with Putin.

Turkish actions are a much more serious threat to undermining NATO and strengthening Putin than the death of a Russian double-spy, wouldn't you agree?

[Rugoz]

This is a straw-man argument. If the UK has evidence that Russia is behind this they are more than welcome to hand over the evidence to the Hague and let justice be done. Why do you not support the independent authority of the Hague to settle the matter instead of your own feelings based on your partisan politics?

You mean the one Russia withdrew from because it classified the annexation of Crimea as "occupation"?

Please spare me from the fairy-tales of "War against ISIS" and how YPG was instrumental in that fight.

Turkish actions are a much more serious threat to undermining NATO and strengthening Putin than the death of a Russian double-spy, wouldn't you agree?

Turkey is also in a strategically very important position and NATO doesn't want to lose it.

[layman]

Putin has shown himself to be a rational actor for way to long. He simply does not do things like this without considering the consequences.

Assuming that it was Russia for a second, It was both rational and well calculated. As igor says, Russia will come out on top most likely. Let’s wsit And see.

And as mike says, you don’t have to support war in this case, or western foreign policy in general, to suspect Russia is guilty.

In fact it is the justified lack of faith in our own leadership, and liberal democracy itself, that Russia exploits so well.

It is now mainstream to assume our government is lying on nearly anything and many of us would sooner believe dictators and hostile states over the likes of Boris, may or Hilary.

I haven’t quite reached that level of cynicism myself which apparently makes me brainwashed.

[noemon]

You mean the one Russia withdrew from because it classified the annexation of Crimea as "occupation"?

And? That Russia is a belligerent actor does not require much statements.

Turkey is also in a strategically very important position and NATO doesn't want to lose it.

You want to punish Russia because she allegedly killed some Russian double-agent...but allow Turkey to openly threaten other NATO members and buy Russian weapon systems. Okay, your calculations do not compute here.

[Vanasalus]

@noemon

You can believe in whatever you want to believe. I am sure you have seen the footage of ISIS militants being escorted out of Raqqa too. Where are they now? If you don't see any problem about 15-20k ISIS militants disappearing into thin air somewhere in Eastern Syria, perhaps you should open up your eyes a little bit more.

As for the S300 system that your country has been operating for 20 years... I did not ask you about how you obtained it. You said, I quote, "Putin can sell weapons to NATO countries which is forbidden by the NATO charter and both Putin and the NATO country that bought them can get away with it." . I merely referred your country has been committing the same "crime" for 20 years.

As for your attempted association of Turkey and ISIS... Most deadly ISIS attacks outside Syria and Iraq occurred in Turkey. We literally waged a war to uproot ISIS from our borders. And we did not let them leave alive unlike our American allies did in Raqqa.

@Rugoz

What I know for sure is ISIS was a horrible terrorist organization. That is it. Where did they come from, whom did they serve, where are they now, I don't know for sure. But,by just looking the flagrant attempts of Syrian partition, the structure of current map, I sense things.

[B0ycey]

2) Being " Pretty convinced " is not good enough if there is no evidence.

Well said. For a country like the UK who pride themselves on "law and order" and "innocent until proven guilty", when it comes to international affairs these principles go out the window.

From my understanding on this, Russia was entitled to see the substance first under international law and the UK decided to accuse without evidence because their feeling got hurt because Russia ignored their ultimatum.

Jeez, even I'm voting Corbyn next election to get those useless twats out of office.

[noemon]

@noemon

You can believe in whatever you want to believe. I am sure you have seen the footage of ISIS militants being escorted out of Raqqa too. Where are they now? If you don't see any problem about 15-20k ISIS militants disappearing into thin air somewhere in Eastern Syria, perhaps you should open up your eyes a little bit more.

I really don't know what you mean. I am not trying to be belligerent on this particular point but it is my understanding that Turkey has propped up ISIS as it has been extensively reported and that the Kurds have fought against ISIS as it has also been extensively reported.

As for the S300 system that your country has been operating for 20 years... I did not ask you about how you obtained it. You said, I quote, "Putin can sell weapons to NATO countries which is forbidden by the NATO charter and both Putin and the NATO country that bought them can get away with it." . I merely referred your country has been committing the same "crime" for 20 years.

Greece has not committed any such "crime". The NATO charter forbids its members from buying Russian weapon systems, as Erdogan is doing. Greece did not buy the S300, Cyprus did and Cyprus is not in NATO. Greece did not break any NATO rules as it was with the consultation of NATO that the S300 were moved from Cyprus into Greece due to Turkish threats of invasion. Buying a weapons system means establishing a long-term relationship in training, provision of parts and technology with your supplier. Greece has no such relationship with Russia, Turkey has made one with Russia and that of course poses a serious threat to NATO security as Turkey can now betray NATO secrets to Russia in order to maintain the chain of supply for its weapon systems.

[Vanasalus]

I really don't know what you mean. I am not trying to be belligerent on this particular point but it is my understanding that Turkey has propped up ISIS as it has been extensively reported and that the Kurds have fought against ISIS as it has also been extensively reported.

Why should we prop up ISIS. Saudi Islam they represent is the total anti-thesis of Turkish understanding of Islam. Perhaps that was the reason why my country was the prime target of ISIS terror campaign.

And the sources "extensively reporting" stories to portray Turkey like a fundamentalist hellhole are nowadays busy shining up the "reformist", "progressive" Saudi crown prince, because he lets women drive cars.

Repeating a lie 40 times does not turn it into a fact.

[fuser]

UK defence secretary tells Russia 'go away and shut up'

Source



This is the kind of top quality diplomatic messages we should expect now it seems, "Go away and shut up".

[ArtAllm]

Before we blame Russia about everything we need to ask ourselves some very simple questions:

1) Why would Russia do this to a spy who was traded for another spy 8 years ago? I simply don't get it.
2) Why use chemical weapons and not polonium again?
3) Why use an agent that everybody knows about?

Etc. There are many questions that i can't answer myself. Do we even have proof that it was the Russians? I mean like physical evidence of how it happened and who did it? What if somebody is framing Russia, i guess we just don't care?

Well, the warmongers always have a standard answer.

The "New Hitler" is just an irrational homicidal maniac, he does not have any logic, he just kills, because he cannot control his instincts.

The warmongers presented this argument many times, Saddam was an irrational maniac, and so the Ahmadinejad, and Assad, who recently, just for fun, gassed civilians.

Now we are supposed to switch off our brains and accept the idea that the new "New Hitler" Putin cannot control his sadistic inclinations and therefore acts unreasonably.

[skinster]

My guess is MI5 or Mossad are responsible. And it's true, because I say so! That's all that's needed, apparently.

PS: It's too bad that our chief conspiracy theorists @Rugoz, @layman, @foxdemon, et. al, have fucked their own mind to the point of being incapable of thinking.

Clearly this is some kind of conspiracy concocted by the governments of the UK, US, France, and Germany involving hundreds of investigators, state department officials, the thousands of staffers involved at every level of government in each of these governments all working together to pretend that this Mossad gas attack false flag was actually done by someone with a history of killing dissidents.

It is a conspiracy until evidence is provided. We don't trust politicians and the MSM that have a very recent history of lying to us constantly, but feel free to, since you obviously do. Like a feckin eejit. But that's by the by, frand.

People were calling for the UN to decide whether or not Assad did the gas attacks and when they did declared them fake news.

There's no evidence the Syrian army attacked Syrian civilians with chemical weapons, still. It was bullshit, just like this story is, but you seem to be a fan of eating up bullshit so, at least you're consistent.

[Atlantis]

Assuming that it was Russia for a second, It was both rational and well calculated. As igor says, Russia will come out on top most likely.

You keep on saying these things, even though you don't have an inch of ground to stand on. Most of your speculation is totally unlikely.

In a major confrontation, Russia cannot win against Nato. It's impossible. Even a major trade conflict would completely ruin Russia.

Russia can win in a local theater like Syria, provided the conflict doesn't escalate into a regional conflagration. Thus, Russia doesn't have any interest in opening another front by attacking a Nato member with chemical weapons. That is totally out off the question.

Putin would have to be brain dead to send a chemical weapon to a place near the UK's chemical weapons center at Porton Down, where the composition of the substance can be analyzed. Why would the Russians offer the enemy their secrete weapon on a silver platter after they have denied the very existence of these chemicals for nearly 40 years. It doesn't make any sense.

Whoever did this deliberately used the Porton Down proximity to make sure chemical weapons specialists reach the site quickly so that a sample can be taken before the substance degraded, for example by rain.

I don't believe the MI6 did it. It wouldn't have taken the weapons specialists several hours to reach the site if they had prior knowledge.

That only leaves Russian oligarchs or criminals trying to trigger a red-line in order to get Western support for toppling Putin. Of all people they are the most likely to have the type of Mafia connections to get the stuff.

Was the CIA involved? If yes, Trump can't have known. Maybe Pompeo was running a covert operation to prepare something big for when he gets to direct US foreign policy. He is said to be very ambitious. He will probably escalate the conflict with Iran. So, getting the Brits to piss at the Russians would come in handy. Let's see how this develops.

Mossad obviously always is a possibility.

Edit grammar.