OFF TOPIC > Russia/Ukraine/Nato

The Skripals-the obvious lies of the UK gov-what really happened?

(1/21) > >>

gringo:
     The credibility of the tale told by the UK government is so obviously bullshit, that it is staggering to me that people take this incoherent, inconsistent nonsense at face value. It falls apart immediately under any questioning at all. But questioning is "repeating Russian misinformation" or being a "Putin apologist". It isn't questioning obvious lies, it is spreading "Russian misinformation" so ignore your own lying eyes.
     The not questioning is a vital, but less understood part of propaganda and how it works. We have reached a stage where questioning the official  UK government line is regarded as unpatriotic or pro-Russian, pro-Assad. It bullies people mentally and psychologically into not questioning. Not many dare to be the boy who recognises that the Emperor is naked. Rather than not wanting to seen as too stupid to see the Emperors fine threads-people are instead afraid of being seen as pro-Putin(the new Hitler!!) and refuse to see the holes in Empire's not so fine threads.
      It is a story that cannot be summed up in one post, hence a new thread.
      The best and most detailed archive is on Salisbury resident and blogger Rob Slane's website the blogmire;

   https://www.theblogmire.com/category/skripal-case/

   
     
      He found himself at the centre of what was to become a huge international story. Although dismissed by David, with his usual irrelevant irreverence, as a "paleo conservative creationist", the detailed day to day reporting by RS and commenting by an army of informed locals and others made the Blogmire easily the most detailed reporting on the affair. Quite what the significance the religious beliefs and political views of anyone has to do with reporting on a huge local story is not elaborated on. They have no bearing, obviously. Do you apply the "check the religious beliefs and political opinions" test to everyone or just those whose views you find challenging? Must make it hard watching or reading anything. All that due diligence you need to carry out before watching or reading to make sure that they are "ideologically pure". Maybe just read/watch and then apply your own "critical thinking" to what has been written/said.
     I will post my views on what I believe was really was going on in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. It is speculation obviously, but based on what agreed facts that are available. What isn't speculation however, is that the UK government version of events is definitely not true, too many facts need to be ignored and wished away for it to be so. Our compliant media ignore those facts but truth doesn't.

     
     
   
       

gringo:
You claimed there was "zero mentions" of Novichok in the OPCW reports. I looked, lo and behold it was there. You then started claiming the OPCW was corrupt.
-David
    You looked in the confidential OPCW reports? It is a fact, David, that the OPCW only confirmed that the substance was what the UK govt said it was. What the UK gov. told the OPCW is confidential. The OPCW were only requested by the UK gov to conduct technical assistance rather than a full "Fact Finding Mission". So you will now be able to show me the OPCW reports that identify the substance used as Novichok-won't you? Where you looked and lo and behold-it was there! That is an easily identifiable lie, David. Show us the OPCW report, David, where Novichok is identified. You can't. There isn't one. I don't want a link to a media report or a UKgov page. The OPCW report that you allege you read and lo and behold...
Below from the OPCW themselves;

OPCW Technical Assistance was requested by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in regards to the chemical incident in Salisbury on 4 March 2018 involving a toxic chemical—allegedly a nerve agent—and the poisoning and hospitalisation of three people.

The OPCW team worked independently and was not involved in the national investigation by the UK authorities. No State Party was involved in the technical work carried out by the Technical Secretariat.

The OPCW team collected environmental and biomedical samples and sent them to four OPCW designated laboratories.

The results of the analysis confirmed the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical.

The UK’s delegation to the OPCW requested that the Technical Secretariat share the report with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and to make the Executive Summary of the report publicly available.

     You may wonder, and ought to, why the UK gov didn't ask the OPCW to do a full "Fact Finding Mission"(FFM). The allegation being made by the UK gov demands nothing less. If true, then Russia have committed an act of war by attacking a country with a chemical weapon as well as a atrocious war crime in a populated area. Who wouldn't demand a full and independent investigation?
     If the allegation was an invention of your intelligence agencies and meant only for crude propaganda, you would probably want to avoid an independent FFM gathering their own samples with full chain of custody. If the allegation was true then you would demand nothing less. Russia requested that the UK invite the OPCW for a FFM. Many wondered why the UK gov were more interested in running propaganda through the press than having an independent investigation into this alleged crime which belatedly led to the UK gov requesting "technical assistance" from the OPCW. A typical perfidious solution of the UK.
     The nature of the assistance the UK gov requested from the OPCW was to ask the OPCW to confirm the "findings" of the UK scientists. The findings of the UK gov are confidential. The OPCW confirmed the UK gov findings which are confidential at the UK insistence.
     The OPCW have only ever confirmed the UK governments findings. Those findings are confidential. The samples were collected by the UK gov without chain of custody. The OPCW have never been asked to confirm that the Novichok was used in Salisbury and nor have they ever claimed this. These are uncontested facts. That you contest them is because you are ill informed.
     Riddle me this? or apply a bit of critical thought-if you can.

     If the UK allegations against Russia were true-do you not think it "unusual"(some may think inexplicable) that the body set up specifically to "achieve a world permanently free of chemical weapons and to contribute to international security and stability, general and complete disarmament" has made no statement or comment on the deployment of a banned chemical weapon supposedly by a state that has been verified by the OPCW as having destroyed all chemical weapons stocks. But nothing. A chemical weapon listed as banned by the OPCW and not a peep of condemnation. No call for an independent investigation. All very curious, don't ya think? No calls for an independent investigation by the UK either. Curiouser and curiouser.
    It is ludicrous to believe that the OPCW have evidence of the use of a banned chemical weapon/deadly nerve agent and have nothing to say about it. Only the gullible believe the UK gov story. It is why there is no independent investigation. The story doesn't survive contact with air, never mind reason. It would shatter into a million pieces under the scrutiny of independent investigation.
    Novichok use has never been claimed officially by the UK gov. It is obvious bullshit and propaganda.
    The inquest of Dawn Sturgess, the only person to die from use of the "world's deadliest nerve agent" described the substance as "Novichok or a related agent". "Related agent", is such a vague elastic term that it is meaningless. Craig Murray on the subject below;

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/no-inquest-for-dawn-sturgess/
     

gringo:
     The report of the OPCW below on the Amesbury incident


NOTE BY THE TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT ON ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT
IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
(TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISIT TAV/03/18 AND TAV/03B/18
“AMESBURY INCIDENT”)
1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requested technical
assistance from the OPCW Technical Secretariat (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) under
subparagraph 38(e) of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention in relation
to an incident in Amesbury on 30 June 2018 involving a toxic chemical and the
poisoning and hospitalisation of two individuals and the subsequent death of one. The
Director-General decided to dispatch a team to the United Kingdom for a technical
assistance visit (TAV).
2. The TAV team deployed to the United Kingdom from 15 July to 18 July 2018 to
collect biomedical samples and again on 13 August 2018 to obtain an additional
environmental sample.
3. The team received information on the medical condition of the surviving affected
individual, Mr Charles Rowley. This included information on his acetylcholinesterase
status since hospitalisation, as well as information on the treatment regime.
4. The team was able to collect blood samples from Mr Charles Rowley for transport to
the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated Laboratories.
Mr Rowley was able to give informed consent himself.
5. The team attended and observed the post-mortem (autopsy) of Ms Dawn Sturgess.
The team was able to collect a number of biomedical samples (mainly tissue samples)
for transport to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated
Laboratories. Consent for this procedure was obtained from the next-of-kin of
Ms Sturgess, and the activity was carried out in compliance with the United Kingdom
Human Tissue Act.
6. The team requested and received splits of biomedical samples collected by the British
authorities for delivery to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW
Designated Laboratories. This was done for the purposes of comparison and in order
to verify the analysis conducted by the United Kingdom.

gringo:
     Continued below; Where does the Noivichok get identified?

7. The team was briefed on the identity of the toxic chemical identified by the United
Kingdom and was able to review analytical results and data from the chemical
analysis of biomedical samples collected from the affected individuals by the British
authorities.
8. The results of the analysis of biomedical samples conducted by OPCW Designated
Laboratories demonstrate that Mr Charles Rowley and Ms Dawn Sturgess were
exposed to and intoxicated by this toxic chemical.
9. During the second deployment, the team collected a sample of the contents of a small
bottle that the police seized as a suspect item from the house of Charles Rowley in
Amesbury.
10. The results of the analysis of this environmental sample conducted by OPCW
Designated Laboratories show that the sample consists of the toxic chemical at a
concentration of 97-98%. The sample is therefore considered a neat agent of high
purity. The OPCW Designated Laboratories also identified a number of impurities
constituting the remaining 2-3% of the sample.
11. The results of the analysis conducted by OPCW Designated Laboratories of
environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the
findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that
intoxicated Mr Charles Rowley and Ms Dawn Sturgess. The toxic chemical
compound, which displays the toxic properties of a nerve agent, is the same toxic
chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the
poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey on 4 March 2018 in
Salisbury (S/1612/2018, dated 12 April 2018).
12. Due to the unknown storage conditions of the small bottle found in the house of
Mr Rowley and the fact that the environmental samples analysed in relation to the
poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey were exposed to the
environment and moisture, the impurity profiles of the samples available to the
OPCW do not make it possible to draw conclusions as to whether the samples are
from the same synthesis batch.
13. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full
classified report of the Secretariat, available to all States Parties.

David1819:
Ah yes. Two GRU agents just so happened to book two return flights under false passports, four days prior to the attack leaving the same night of the attack and they just so happened to be in Salisbury that day.

 :))

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page