talkFORUM

paolo wrote:isis only use american supplied equipment

paolo wrote:may should deffo resign

we have poked and prodded

sent spies

surrounded his country with nukes

shot his plane down
conducted espionage

one day, he will react

remember, thus far, despite everythiung, he has not reacted

one day, they will get what they want

Steve Hunt wrote:

delboy1983 wrote:Could someone have bought the nerve agent from the Russians.

Possibly. Who knows? Though the target would suggest otherwise.

But in which case, it's surely incumbent on Putin to tell the West that.

If only to warn that more of the stuff is unaccounted for.

Imagine if ISIS got hold of it?

paolo wrote:isis only use american supplied equipment

Hillman avenger wrote:

paolo wrote:isis only use american supplied equipment

I think you mean equipment manufactured in the US.
And if offered it, irrespective of where it came from, why would they refuse?

delboy1983 wrote:Do we have any diplomats in Russia.Assuming so the Russians will deport them as retaliation.
That's how it usually goes.

Steve Hunt wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

paolo wrote:france has spoken

post up the evidence, MyMay

Reminiscent of France's stance in the run up to the Iraq invasion, - I forget who was proven correct, and who were the liars at that time.
I must admit that I'm baffled by this seemingly suicidal rush to confront Russia,

Are you, Roy (& Paolo)?

You cannot have foriegn countries letting off deadly nerve agents in another country. Now you might say (reasonably) that how do we know it was authorised by Putin & the Kremlin. Well, apart from the fact that he has previous when it comes to poisoning 'undesirables' on foreign soil, the nerve agent has come from Russia. It is a Novichok agent which was developed by the former Soviet Union.
One way or another, Russia was involved. Why? Because no one else knows how to make the bloody stuff . Novichok precursor chemicals are also safer to transport and handle than ready-made nerve agents.

A for May's response, I'd say it is too timid. Putin is the type of man who will sieze upon weakness. Her response to a foreign country letting off a deadly nerve agent is imo, frankly pathetic.

But, as is always the case, it is interesting (& very telling) to see the international response. The Trump administration is fully behind UK, while Macron cannot muster the courage to stand up to Russia. For the last 18 months the liberal brigade have insisted that Trump is in hoc to Russia, whilst that nice Mr Macron was the antidote to all that. Perhaps now Hillman & Co may care to have a little re-think.

Roy Twing wrote:

Steve Hunt wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

paolo wrote:france has spoken

post up the evidence, MyMay

Reminiscent of France's stance in the run up to the Iraq invasion, - I forget who was proven correct, and who were the liars at that time.
I must admit that I'm baffled by this seemingly suicidal rush to confront Russia,

Are you, Roy (& Paolo)?

You cannot have foriegn countries letting off deadly nerve agents in another country. Now you might say (reasonably) that how do we know it was authorised by Putin & the Kremlin. Well, apart from the fact that he has previous when it comes to poisoning 'undesirables' on foreign soil, the nerve agent has come from Russia. It is a Novichok agent which was developed by the former Soviet Union.
One way or another, Russia was involved. Why? Because no one else knows how to make the bloody stuff . Novichok precursor chemicals are also safer to transport and handle than ready-made nerve agents.

A for May's response, I'd say it is too timid. Putin is the type of man who will sieze upon weakness. Her response to a foreign country letting off a deadly nerve agent is imo, frankly pathetic.

But, as is always the case, it is interesting (& very telling) to see the international response. The Trump administration is fully behind UK, while Macron cannot muster the courage to stand up to Russia. For the last 18 months the liberal brigade have insisted that Trump is in hoc to Russia, whilst that nice Mr Macron was the antidote to all that. Perhaps now Hillman & Co may care to have a little re-think.

(Sorry for taking so long to reply)
I have no firm convictions of this (potentially grave) subject Steve, - I just vividly recall the messages being fed to us at the time of the iraq invasion, and of how convinced we were all meant to be that saddam had WMQs. This current propaganda (for want of a better word) from our politicians & media seems very similar to me. I wasn't convinced then, and I'm not convinced now.
It seems to me that in such a monumentally critical position as this, there should be no doubt whatsoever (and then some) that Russia committed this attempted assassination, - as with the WMQs, - I haven’t seen that 150% proof, - have you?
Also, - are we to believe that this country (and so many others) do not carry out similar killings in other countries, - why are we now making such a headlong rush to single out Russia at this time?
It just doesn’t make sense.

Roy Twing wrote:This story has gone extremely quiet.
I wonder why.
I was trying to see what the current situation is on this, but it's just been left in the hope it'll be forgotten about, it seems.