UK has no proof of Russia’s role in Skripal poisoning - Page 33 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14954447
Sivad wrote:Their physical location is not the issue. The issue is independent skeptical journalists don't have access to the Skripals. The state has only provided extremely limited access to state approved establishment media outlets . That's good enough for the babbitts and the state knows it doesn't need to sell 'the reality-based community' on its narrative because there just aren't enough people grounded in reality to matter politically. Consensus reality is a joke.

You may be unhappy with the restricted media access, but again that's neither suspicious nor inconsistent with the Skripals being assassinated by Russian agents. It's exactly what one would expect of any government dealing with such an issue.

I have no problem with people being skeptical and looking for inconsistencies but you guys have to do better than what has been presented in this thread.

ingliz wrote:Is this just another coincidence?

The country’s leading experts in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear warfare were staging a mock chemical attack in the Salisbury area, the same day the Skripals were poisoned.

Whoa, very suspicious! Drawing attention to Salisbury by way of a military exercise is precisely what the UK government would do if they wanted to poison the Skripals and blame Russia.

Seriously, these exercises are carried out every year and Salisbury happens to be the largest military training area in the UK.
#14954451
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I have no problem with people being skeptical and looking for inconsistencies but you guys have to do better than what has been presented in this thread.


I don't have to do better, I'm not in any way obliged to accept the flimsy narrative of a duplicitous establishment that has repeatedly lied and manufactured evidence to advance its own corrupt agendas. The authority of officialdom may be good enough for the babbitts but some of us require actual evidence and so far there's not even enough circumstantial evidence to put Putin at the top of the list of suspects.
#14954461
Sivad wrote:I don't have to do better, I'm not in any way obliged to accept the flimsy narrative of a duplicitous establishment that has repeatedly lied and manufactured evidence to advance its own corrupt agendas. The authority of officialdom may be good enough for the babbitts but some of us require actual evidence and so far there's not even enough circumstantial evidence to put Putin at the top of the list of suspects.

Nobody is obliged to believe anything, obviously. But the stuff to raise doubts that has been posted in this thread, including repeated questions about the whereabouts of the Skirpals and wanting certain journalists to have access to them not to mention "industry standard" face recognition and military exercises, is just silly, especially if you want to claim to be a discerning observer.

In fact, the idea that we should by default suspect that this is a setup by the UK government is inane. It's rather a very remote possibility that we cannot completely rule out and as such a lot more substance is required here.
#14954477
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Nobody is obliged to believe anything, obviously.


Actually we are obliged to believe or disbelieve according to reason and evidence.

But the stuff to raise doubts that has been posted in this thread, including repeated questions about the whereabouts of the Skirpals and wanting certain journalists to have access to them is just silly, especially if you want to claim to be a discerning observer.


An expectation of transparency and openness to public scrutiny is silly? Ok then. I not only expect access, I demand it. If I don't get it I don't accept the narrative, it's that simple. I do not trust the fucking establishment at all under any circumstances.

In fact, the idea that we should by default suspect that this is a setup by the UK government is inane.


I guess, if you don't know anything about its track record in these situations. The idea that we should trust that the UK wouldn't do such a thing is completely asinine.

It's rather a very remote possibility that we cannot completely rule out and as such a lot more substance is required here.


Based on recent history, there's a very good possibility this whole thing was manufactured by Western intelligence. You want to pretend otherwise then you're just not going to be taken seriously by anyone that's worth talking to. You'll still have plenty of babbitts prattle with but for me that would be intellectual suicide and a fate worse than death.
#14955072
Sivad wrote:Actually we are obliged to believe or disbelieve according to reason and evidence.

An expectation of transparency and openness to public scrutiny is silly? Ok then. I not only expect access, I demand it. If I don't get it I don't accept the narrative, it's that simple. I do not trust the fucking establishment at all under any circumstances.

I guess, if you don't know anything about its track record in these situations. The idea that we should trust that the UK wouldn't do such a thing is completely asinine.

Based on recent history, there's a very good possibility this whole thing was manufactured by Western intelligence. You want to pretend otherwise then you're just not going to be taken seriously by anyone that's worth talking to. You'll still have plenty of babbitts prattle with but for me that would be intellectual suicide and a fate worse than death.

By reason and evidence you should lean towards the UK version of events at this point.

On intelligence and national security matters it is impossible to have complete transparency and openness, especially contemporaneously. This is a fundamental problem and while you are right that this can lead to abuse, it cannot be resolved. Some things have to stay classified, at least for some time, and people who get access need to be vetted. That's precisely why I pointed out earlier that the UK govt has not acted suspiciously at all in its handling of the Skirpal case.

The conspiracy required for this to be choreographed by western intelligence to implicate Russia is above and beyond what has transpired in recent history. At the same time, the west would be well advised to tone down its rhetoric of the Russian/Putin mastermind who is changing election outcomes with ease and the like. If anything, if recent news is anything to go by, Russia emerges as quite incompetent on election manipulation, the Skripal assassination and even on censorship attempts domestically. That doesn't mean it isn't a threat, but not the kind western politicians and media are keen to portray.
#14955084
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:On intelligence and national security matters it is impossible to have complete transparency and openness, especially contemporaneously.

This is a fundamental problem and while you are right that this can lead to abuse, it cannot be resolved.


There are many simple solutions, the only reason the problem persists is because the corrupt and duplicitous deep state is allergic to sunlight.

Some things have to stay classified, at least for some time, and people who get access need to be vetted. That's precisely why I pointed out earlier that the UK govt has not acted suspiciously at all in its handling of the Skirpal case.


In this case there is no reason whatsoever why independent journalists don't have access to the Skripals.

The conspiracy required for this to be choreographed by western intelligence to implicate Russia is above and beyond what has transpired in recent history.


That's either ignorant or dishonest, do we really have go through all the crazy lies and bullshit from Western intelligence over the last couple decades?


This forum isn't important enough to bother with bullshitting, if you're not being honest you're just wasting your time. I can see bullshitting if you have a mass audience but we're just talking with each other here so what's the point?
#14955164
Sivad wrote:In this case there is no reason whatsoever why independent journalists don't have access to the Skripals.

There is a simple reason: they were the target of a murder attempt. As such, they will want the minimum publicity possible about where they may now be living. It was also a traumatic period where both had serious neurological problems and nearly died. It's no surprise whatsoever that they don't want to travel around the country at the beck and call of people they don't know, just to relive the worst moments of their lives. That's without having to vet the independent journalists so that they don't, wittingly or unwittingly, give away any details about the Skripals that might allow the Russians to find them.

People in witness protection programmes do not normally give interviews. It's absurd for you to demand that they do.

The conspiracy required for this to be choreographed by western intelligence to implicate Russia is above and beyond what has transpired in recent history.

That's either ignorant or dishonest

No, it's simple common sense. These 2 Russians turn up in England for a few days, have an unbelievable cover story that is literally laughable, and for you to think that western intelligence have planted them and forced the Russians to use that absurd cover story what is actually "either ignorant or dishonest".
#14955215
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:There is a simple reason: they were the target of a murder attempt. As such, they will want the minimum publicity possible about where they may now be living. It was also a traumatic period where both had serious neurological problems and nearly died. It's no surprise whatsoever that they don't want to travel around the country at the beck and call of people they don't know, just to relive the worst moments of their lives. That's without having to vet the independent journalists so that they don't, wittingly or unwittingly, give away any details about the Skripals that might allow the Russians to find them.


:knife: it's 2018 not 1718, interviews don't have to be conducted in person.


People in witness protection programmes do not normally give interviews.


Yes, they do. It's called trial by jury. If the state wants the public to believe its conspiracy theory it needs to allow the public access to all of the evidence including witness testimony along with a thorough cross examination. In the West we don't just take the state's word for it, in fact our entire way of life is based on not taking the state's word for it.
#14955298
"our entire way of life"? Huh? Are you saying you see yourself as a typical western person? In this case, you are, of course, not - because you're in the tiny minority who don't understand that Russia did this. It's not the western public that needs convincing - it's just you. You seem to think that "independent journalists" can demand the arrangements used during a trial. I'm not really sure you understand how life in the west works at all.
#14955315
Didn't Daughter Skripal's own cousin state she felt Daughter Skripal's interview seemed scripted and used language not commonly used by Russians? :excited:

This notion that we should trust what the Tory govt tells us because they obviously care so much about the Skripals to keep them secure is absurd.

They're hidden from us because the authorities are hiding something, probably everything, to try to maintain this nonsensical story that some people have eaten up like WMDs.
#14955351
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: Are you saying you see yourself as a typical western person? In this case, you are, of course, not - because you're in the tiny minority who don't understand that Russia did this. It's not the western public that needs convincing - it's just you.


According to a BMG poll 49% aren't convinced the Russians did it. 7% think it was Uk intelligence, 6% think it was organized crime, and 33% aren't sure. 23% support Corbyn's skepticism. So it's not a tiny minority that isn't buying the official narrative.
#14955466
The conspiracy required for this to be choreographed by western intelligence to implicate Russia is above and beyond what has transpired in recent history.

That's either ignorant or dishonest

So you're saying it's "ignorant or dishonest" to say that 7% are wrong. And your poll appears to be this from April - before the Russian pair were exposed. I don't think anyone's done a poll after the evidence about the pair was shown - because it's so damn obvious. People don't often do polls on whether the Earth goes round the Sun.
#14955493
It's not "obvious" at all. There's still no evidence Russia is responsible for poisoning the Skripals with a military grade nerve agent that did not kill either, this many pages on. You can't say it is true unless you can prove it, which you can't because if you could, we would know already. Saying it over again or thinking gaslighting is an argument is not. Do better.
#14961812
If the Russians wanted him dead for his espionage, they could've killed him rather than imprisoning him and letting him leave. It's more likely the motive by whoever did it is to demonise Russia.

Anyway, whatever happened to the Skripals? Any updates? Will our government ever tell us? Do they even matter? :excited:
  • 1
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34

@annatar1914 Is it really necessary for it to […]

Why I am a Materialist Christian

This post was inspired... It was inspired by wat[…]

Nike, Kaepernick and Arizona...

“Moving the goalposts” means that the person has […]

Sexual assaults against young men by a homosexual[…]