UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 36 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

y va marquer

What would constitute convincing information?

If information that met the criteria of "convincing" were to be made public how could facts be verified independently?
If the information comes from intelligence sources, who by nature of their work will know things that cannot be checked, how can the public know to trust them?

Since Porton Down's come into the frame I've seen numerous articles questioning the credibility of Porton Down.

On-line is awash with opinion on why the seemingly plausible explanation of Russian involvement is not to be trusted, yet some of the alternative explanations involve an acceptance of the belief that the hopelessly inept May, and mendacious buffoon Boris, have suddenly turned into some next level geniuses engaged in Bond villain levels of deceit and manipulation.

Qwiss

When we talk about "intelligence sources" though we are talking about MI5/6 and there is no low they wouldn't sink to.

Tony Montana

Is there any low the Russian sources wouldn't sink too?

jones

Yeah and theres none that Chinese American German or Israeli intel sources wouldn't sink to either. Doesn't make any of them complicit in the act does it?

Coombs

Doesn't absolve them either. All nation states are complicit if you reduce to the historically absurd.

When you start privileging one false narrative over another, you play directly into the hands of power. That a rival erred has no sway over another's culpability, nor does it relieve any of us of responsibility. It's the wrong argument, it only makes everything worse.

jones

And it's pretty much the exact opposite of the argument I've been making. I never claimed to know who was responsible, I'm saying May and her people are full of shit.

Tam

That still doesn't mean they are wrong though.

jones

Do you have any reason to trust what they say?

Tam

Yes, in the sense that their broad assertion of Russia being responsible tallies with what I think. I can't say I don't believe them when I share their view on the perpetrators. I don't have complete trust in anything I hear from politicians though.

Not every word out of a liar's mouth needs to be a lie.

Burnwinter

y va marquer wrote:
On-line is awash with opinion on why the seemingly plausible explanation of Russian involvement is not to be trusted, yet some of the alternative explanations involve an acceptance of the belief that the hopelessly inept May, and mendacious buffoon Boris, have suddenly turned into some next level geniuses engaged in Bond villain levels of deceit and manipulation.

I don't think it really requires that. To see how the FCO rhetoric fits in with the broader strategic landscape, take a look at this opinion piece published yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/douma-syria-regime-bashar-al-assad-murder-civilians

If morality is not enough, then consider self-interest. What difference is there, really, between unleashing chemical weapons on the streets of Douma and the streets of Salisbury? May has been at pains to stress the measures taken against Russia are about more than the unfortunate Skripals. They are about ubiquitous, ongoing, egregious Russian wrongdoing, she says. Well, Syria is a prime example of malign Russian meddling.

France and Britain should use the international solidarity forged in Salisbury’s wake to intensify pressure on Vladimir Putin over Syria. Paris and London should also join forces to ensure that before he shoots off his mouth and missiles again, Trump and his new pet hawk, John Bolton, closely coordinate any US military action in return for Anglo-French participation and support.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, there is a far broader agenda to what is going on than what anyone thinks about the lives of the Skripals. Frankly it barely matters where the attack on them came from. What matters is how it's being used as leverage.

Tam

Burnwinter wrote:
y va marquer wrote:
On-line is awash with opinion on why the seemingly plausible explanation of Russian involvement is not to be trusted, yet some of the alternative explanations involve an acceptance of the belief that the hopelessly inept May, and mendacious buffoon Boris, have suddenly turned into some next level geniuses engaged in Bond villain levels of deceit and manipulation.

I don't think it really requires that. To see how the FCO rhetoric fits in with the broader strategic landscape, take a look at this opinion piece published yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/douma-syria-regime-bashar-al-assad-murder-civilians

If morality is not enough, then consider self-interest. What difference is there, really, between unleashing chemical weapons on the streets of Douma and the streets of Salisbury? May has been at pains to stress the measures taken against Russia are about more than the unfortunate Skripals. They are about ubiquitous, ongoing, egregious Russian wrongdoing, she says. Well, Syria is a prime example of malign Russian meddling.

France and Britain should use the international solidarity forged in Salisbury’s wake to intensify pressure on Vladimir Putin over Syria. Paris and London should also join forces to ensure that before he shoots off his mouth and missiles again, Trump and his new pet hawk, John Bolton, closely coordinate any US military action in return for Anglo-French participation and support.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, there is a far broader agenda to what is going on than what anyone thinks about the lives of the Skripals. Frankly it barely matters where the attack on them came from. What matters is how it's being used as leverage.

Absolute nonsense.

jones

Tam wrote:
Yes, in the sense that their broad assertion of Russia being responsible tallies with what I think. I can't say I don't believe them when I share their view on the perpetrators. I don't have complete trust in anything I hear from politicians though.

Not every word out of a liar's mouth needs to be a lie.

But that's not really the question I asked, in fact you don't even specify which Russian actor you consider as a possible culprit although I'll just assume you mean some Russian agent on orders of Putin himself

The question wasn't whether you consider Russia to be able to poison someone on foreign soil - we're talking about a country (or rather its legal successor) with several intelligence agencies and extensive experience in operations like these, of course they're able and if you want to you can see a motive somewhere in killing a harmless ex-spy.

But to stay in your argument, just because someone's an asshole doesn't mean they're responsible for everything they're accused of, especially when they're in the company of loads of other actors with a history of doing the same and lying to the world about it.

Sergey Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a deadly military grade nerve agent, several times more deadly than Sarin or VX, and after having dinner several hours later they collapsed on a park bench. His daughter has been discharged from hospital today, and her father is on the way to recovery as well. Really, you go out of your way to murder someone with a spectacular toxin like that and you fail at it? The FCO claims they're "categorically" told the poison can be traced back to Russia with certainty and they're immediately rebuked by Porton Down (and then quickly delete the statement from the gov website), that still doesn't raise an eyebrow?

You could literally go on for pages. It is still very much a possibility that it was Russian non-state or even state actors behind this incident. What's 100% ruled however is this dodgy bullshit account by notorious bullshit peddlers and frankly I can't see how one regardless of anyones feelings for Russia cannot see this

Burnwinter

It's of secondary importance Tam. The Skripals aren't the underlying reason Russian diplomats are being expelled or we're being reminded of Russia's ties to Syria.

That just doesn't stand to reason—these hostilities have been ongoing on different fronts for years.

arsedocmd

Don't ya'll have another more dangerous chemical attack to discuss in another thread?

jones

arsedoc md wrote:
Don't ya'll have another more dangerous chemical attack to discuss in another thread?

No there's obviously nothing to discuss as the US, UK and France have vetoed the OPCW from visiting Duma to investigate what kind of attack occurred and who was responsible for it. I'm certain May had very credible reasons to deny the OPCW access to a chemical attack site for the second time in four weeks

Very convenient that Roi Soleil Macron doesn't even have to ask his parliament before he violates international law and starts bombing Syria back into a civil war which was dying down. Just a bit embarrassing for him and the rest of Europe who kept talking of isolating Trump and building an antipole to him who're now falling over heals to stand next to him when he pulls his guns out in yet another war of aggression

goon

In fairness didn't they both vote down each others resolutions on investigations? Both of which had strings attached.

Also the OPCW is going in to investigate anyway so the resolution is a little moot.

jones

Which strings attached? It's not up to Russia or the UK to propose investigations - legally speaking it's mandatory to allow the OPCW in according to their procedures and statutes which all member states have signed

Burnwinter

Thoughts on the Bellingcat analysis Jones?

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/04/11/open-source-survey-alleged-chemical-attacks-douma-7th-april-2018/

Mason linked to it in his latest piece of froth for the New Statesman. I know Bellingcat has a controversial reputation.

jones

I don't read stuff from Bellingcat, Higgins is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and even if he wasn't - I remember an interview of his where he said that his expertise on weaponry comes from action films ffs. Have to give him credit though for a basement dwelling dickhead he's done very well for himself

I just clicked on your link and the first thing I see is him quoting the White Helmets as his source of information. So yeah sorry for the gruff response but there's little else to say about him

Burnwinter

No hard feelings on my part. It's interesting to me that Mason is quoting such a source (as mentioned I was aware Bellingcat was discredited by anti-imps), not that I expect much better from him. But yeah from what I understand Higgins is basically a nerd who looks at pixels.

« Previous Page Next Page »