Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
Reginald Barrington wrote:Oh please! Nicola stop repeating Corbyns tired anti-British rhetoric and think for yourself you were given a brain try using it.
Using my brain and thinking for myself is exactly what I'm doing, but clearly am in the wrong forum for that.
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
Nicola, Clausewitz said, 'war is a continuation of state policy by other means.'
What we are looking at here is an example of DIME (the defence establishment love acronyms).
I don't propose to write on the subject on this forum but you might find this paper interesting
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA561308
It is unclassified so only speaks in generalities and does not take into account the growth of 'social media'.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,875
Nicola Barley wrote:Guessing you are quite old, Captain, so may not care that much, but I still have most of my life to live and ideally to grow as old as you are.
Besides you did not contribute any reasonable responses to the points I raised, but carry on, keep chuckling
I am old and have children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, like most my age we care about the future world they will live in.
By your comment I can only assume you are not worried that one power hungry man can decide when his enemies and family can be murdered even if another countries population are put at risk. I wonder if you would feel the same if you were that policeman's family or even lived in Salisbury on that fateful day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
Quite warming to note that the admins have chosen to remove some of the more patronising and condescending guff posted in this thread.
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,299
Fascinated to see how this plays out across the Labour party with JC's response. If it proves to be dramatically the wrong side of public opinion, it may just be a good thing to note that to take that final step into Government, it can't always be the Jeremy Corbyn show. Let's see.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
Cheer up folks! Here's the BBC Pidgin account of the Salisbury poisoning. (Just one of the reasons I'm happy to pay my TV licence)
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/world-43404495"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
Thank you, Captain, I sure will peruse through the DIME link you provided, should be a good bedtime reading! While we are at it, I'd like to throw in a reminder about the
Zinoviev letter document,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter as well as one of my favourite quotes by Edward L. Bernays, the father of “public relations” -
If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
Jan Higgins wrote:
By your comment I can only assume you are not worried that one power hungry man can decide when his enemies and family can be murdered even if another countries population are put at risk.
With all due respect, Jan, I am aghast at your assumption, whatever gave you that impression, pray tell.
That aside, I am all up for a healthy debate. You made another assumption about what happened in Salisbury just because May told us it is so. Someone in Downing Street has decided to accuse another State of a serious Crime without adequate proof. UK Law and Judicial Process applies here, not Politics. Does Russia asking for a sample and a joint investigation not count as a fair & reasonable response? Surely if Russia isn't involved we need to know where this came from, and if Russia is involved then the sample and other evidence would prove it. Putin is correct on having verification, but we just so love to hate him in this country so why spoil a good story by admitting that his was a justified request. In the meantime Corbyn has been getting a lot of flak for reasonably asking the government to take a pragmatic and careful approach to the Salisbury investigation. Basing it on concrete evidence with the end result being appropriate punishment and the avoidance of worsening international relations alongside a guarantee that Britain is safe from extreme Russian retaliation. So far I have not seen/heard any evidence presented by May, only politically motivated hot air, and a lot of insanity tbh. Her 24hr ultimatum clearly suggested that they had already pre-decided how they’d like this storyline to play out about the Russian involvement, May is not interested in any investigation or concrete evidence. Seen this too many times before! We, the public, must not be treated like easily misled mugs that they can lie to without consequences, just like we were lied to about the WMD in Iraq (thanks to Blair, the warmongering lapdog of the Bush administration) – and look where that all led to!
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Please do not fall out with each other over a post done by myself ,all I was saying is the way I see it and still do Russia now saying they are going to take action over the UK sending back home 25 of their own staff.Where will it all end up?
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Nicola Barley wrote:With all due respect, Jan, I am aghast at your assumption, whatever gave you that impression, pray tell.
That aside, I am all up for a healthy debate. You made another assumption about what happened in Salisbury just because May told us it is so. Someone in Downing Street has decided to accuse another State of a serious Crime without adequate proof. UK Law and Judicial Process applies here, not Politics. Does Russia asking for a sample and a joint investigation not count as a fair & reasonable response? Surely if Russia isn't involved we need to know where this came from, and if Russia is involved then the sample and other evidence would prove it. Putin is correct on having verification, but we just so love to hate him in this country so why spoil a good story by admitting that his was a justified request. In the meantime Corbyn has been getting a lot of flak for reasonably asking the government to take a pragmatic and careful approach to the Salisbury investigation. Basing it on concrete evidence with the end result being appropriate punishment and the avoidance of worsening international relations alongside a guarantee that Britain is safe from extreme Russian retaliation. So far I have not seen/heard any evidence presented by May, only politically motivated hot air, and a lot of insanity tbh. Her 24hr ultimatum clearly suggested that they had already pre-decided how they’d like this storyline to play out about the Russian involvement, May is not interested in any investigation or concrete evidence. Seen this too many times before! We, the public, must not be treated like easily misled mugs that they can lie to without consequences, just like we were lied to about the WMD in Iraq (thanks to Blair, the warmongering lapdog of the Bush administration) – and look where that all led to!
So if I understand you correctly, we need to send Russia samples of the nerve agent, in order for the Russian Government to decide whether they tried to kill someone with it or not.
Russia has no genuine intention of helping any investigation. We are, after all, still awaiting the extradition of the suspects of the Litvenenko murder, from 2006!
Jan Higgins likes this
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,875
On the slight off chance that Putin and Russia are innocent
, we are supposed to send them a sample of a deadly nerve gas so they can say they are innocent and if innocent provide them with the means to replicate it.
That would be a completely irresponsible thing to do. Putin is virtually a dictator who I strongly believe is a real danger to the future of world peace, he is simply waiting to pounce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
Any case of alleged use of chemical weapons should be handled through the proper channel, in this instance it’s the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, of which both Russia and Britain are members.
The suspected/accused member state has the right to request
access to full information available to the accusing member state and to the location where the chemical attack took place to enable experts to test it in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, under the supervision of OPCW (obviously!)
The OPCW rules allow Britain in this case to send a request to Russia on the suspected Russian-made chemical weapon and expect a response within [B][U]10 days[/U][/B]. If the response is not satisfactory, Britain would have to file a complaint with the organization’s executive council and the conference of CWC member-states.
Just look it up on the OPCW site, for goodness sake.
What’s very interesting is that Britain has not (so far) addressed the relevant international body in The Hague (OPCW) but instead brought the case to the UN. Might they be concerned about a professional investigation?
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
To put it simply, just think, who would be the main beneficiary of putting a bad spotlight on Russia, further demonising Putin and diverting public attention at this moment in time? I think I know the answer.
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Well that did show Russia we send 23 home and they put the cost of our oil and Gas up or even cut it off,would you say the UK won this one? Good thing the U.S.A. is behind us,but the UK as a trading nation need to get on with all nations not just the USA sorry but Mrs May did not do a good job at the home office and not doing a good one as the PM,we have to put all this behind us and move on.
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,064
Where the second-oldest profession's concerned we can be certain of one thing: we're not getting the whole story, and very probably the bits of the story we are getting have no relation to the real story anyway. Fortunately the bad weather means there's a lot of salt about at the moment, and I'll be taking anything I hear from government, opposition, press or local councillors with more than my normal liberal pinch of it.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,053
Whereas post 32 calls for the prescribed process to be observed, post 34 reads like out-and-out appeasement to me. Cum grano salis indeed, WGS!
(Not my real name.)
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Nicola Barley wrote:Any case of alleged use of chemical weapons should be handled through the proper channel, in this instance it’s the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, of which both Russia and Britain are members.
The suspected/accused member state has the right to request
access to full information available to the accusing member state and to the location where the chemical attack took place to enable experts to test it in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, under the supervision of OPCW (obviously!)
The OPCW rules allow Britain in this case to send a request to Russia on the suspected Russian-made chemical weapon and expect a response within [B][U]10 days[/U][/B]. If the response is not satisfactory, Britain would have to file a complaint with the organization’s executive council and the conference of CWC member-states.
Just look it up on the OPCW site, for goodness sake.
What’s very interesting is that Britain has not (so far) addressed the relevant international body in The Hague (OPCW) but instead brought the case to the UN. Might they be concerned about a professional investigation?
Firstly, Britain has reported the Salisbury attack to the OPCW, and has invited the OPCW to help verify Britain's claims about the nerve agent involved. Britain was also supported in taking the issue to the UNSC, due to the international security implications involved.
Secondly, Britain is not obliged by the Chemical Weapons Convention to provide Russia with evidence gathered during a criminal investigation. However, the CWC does oblige Russia to declare its chemical weapons programs, which in the case of Novichok it has failed to do. We should of course overlook that breach, as we don't want to demonise anyone.
Now, about those Litveneko suspects......?
Reginald Barrington likes this
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
Last time we engaged in mass expulsions in 1985, Sir Bryan Cartledge ('our' man in Moscow) sent telegram to the blessed Margaret stating 'Never engage in a pissing match with a skunk, he possesses important natural advantages'.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
More conspiracy theory here (debunked)! God, I love science.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
From the above twitter thread:
Clyde Davies wrote: In my book, if something looks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a bloody duck. Why in God's name some people have to argue the essential duckiness of a duck is utterly baffling
Jan Higgins and Captain Haddock like this