You have little knowledge of it either,your lengthy post being all supposition. I prefer to recall the case of Alexander Litvinenko, which makes me think that there are rogue elements in Russia with access to these substances wishing to curry favour with Putin and his quasi-one party state, sustained through the shocking murder of Boris Nemtsov and the disbarment of Alexei Navalny in the March election.
Do you believe as you first stated that the nerve agent used was produced by the Russians?
If you do believe this could you endow us with the evidence to back up this claim? It is a simple request. The OPCW, the Porton Down scientists and the UK government have been very careful to not make this claim. The UK government have only committed themselves to this carefully crafted statement which is designed to lead the gullible into inferring untruths which they themselves cannot explicitly utter. Here is the official UK government statement issued in the aftermath of the incident:
"This use of a military grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War." Why, do you think, are the words, "of a type developed by Russia" used? Why does that statement not explicitly claim, as you do, that the Russians produced the nerve agent? Why is the word developed rather than produced used? What exactly does the otherwise superfluous "of a type" mean? Take the words "of a type" away from the statement and it still makes sense. However, without these words it would explicitly blame the Russians. Do you think that this is perhaps why they were inserted?
Perhaps more importantly, why do you think that the statement falls short of claiming that the agent used was of a type "exclusively" developed by Russia. It obviously leaves the clear implication that other unnamed countries also developed "agents of this type" but , well they are not attempting to imply guilt on the other unnamed countries.
If you do not know the answers to these questions, or were unaware that they even existed because you don't question enough, then I will spell it out for you.
The statement to anyone who follows politics is meaningless twaddle, spin, a form of words "of a type developed by Whitehall" designed to distract and mislead.
It is crafted in such a way as to avoid making accusations, ie. directly lying, which are unsupported by any evidence but is simultaneously misleading enough to encourage the unenlightened to infer that Russia is being named as responsible. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker and are now making wild and unsupported allegations that the Russians "produced" the nerve agent used in Salisbury. You actually believe that this "fact" is somehow undisputed demonstrating your own "little knowledge" and then, without irony, accuse me of the same.
You claim that my previous post displayed "little knowledge" and was "all supposition". Quite how you dismiss as "supposition" the letter from Salisbury Consultant Dr. Davies, the court papers not naming novichok, the dubious statements via the Met, the phone call from Yulia, the media blackout on all of these witnesses/victims, the OPCW involvement under strangely prohibitive terms dictated by the UK government and the rest of the uncontested statements and findings of scientists is something that only you can answer. I suspect that you didn't read it fully and have demonstrated that it is in fact,
"easier to fool a person than convince them they have been fooled"
As for having "little knowledge" your own "short posts" manage to pack more supposition into a single sentence than I could manage in a book displaying, for all to see, your ignorance.
To dismiss the post as supposition and to "prefer to recall the case of Alexander Litvinenko...", is a pathetic attempt to divert, but only long enough to attempt to distract from the fact that you are unable to rebut anything in my post or offer any evidence to back up your own claims.
I choose the words "but only long enough" carefully, because it is already apparent to me that your knowledge of the Litvinenko and Nemtsov murders, as well as the disbarment of Navalny is, to be generous, no worse than your "understanding" of the Salibury Affair and any discussion on those matters would rapidly demonstrate this.
I am happy to discuss any and all of the above cases but I "would prefer" that you back up your claims regarding Salisbury first. Can you provide any evidence that the agent used in Salisbury was Russian manufactured and if so, then do. Can you also provide the evidence that in any way shows/proves Russian involvement?
