Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (part 2)

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

new thread as the old one is practically done.

I don’t think this is a major revelation. It just reiterates that it is a Novichok of the type developed by Russia. No definitive answer but Russia has the history of use.
The interesting thing I suppose it that it seems it was made in lab conditions. Am I correct in thinking this, it was very pure and uncomtaminated. I suppose that’s difficult to achieve in anything but a sterile lab. Can transporting it from Russia, or over a long distance cause it to be contaminated? Or does it mean it was likely made in a lab here?
Still more questions than answers.

Did someone on previous thread say that “contaminants show which lab it was made in”
Was that you OYBK?

I heard on radio was that witholding details of structure from public was to stop pp trying to make it at home .

That's nonsense. We know thousands of chemical structures that are lethal and it does not mean we all go around making them!

Besides, what's in a name?

Why haven't they, at least, named the substance? This is at the very heart of the finger-pointing.

^We know thousands of chemical structures that are lethal*
well you might ,I don't know one .And I bet I'm not alone .

Why should it be made public knowledge ?

Counterpoint,

No, it really is not.

Say they named the chemical and published the structure, what would it show?

You would just say that they are making it up, wouldn't you.

Simple question: Were they poisoned with a nerve agent?

Simple answer: Yes, we know by the treatment they received and this is incontrovertible, as way too many medical professionals know about the treatment for a fabrication to be covered up.

Simple question: who had a motivation to kill them?

Simple answer: The Russian government as they seem to have been giving away Russian secrets (though I doubt very important ones) since the spy swap.

Simple question: who has plentiful availability of weapon's grade nerve agents?

Simple answer: Many state players but only with a CLEAR motivation to use it against the Skripals.

Of course, you can concoct alternative scenarios, but they are highly implausible and easy to cut through with Okham's razor.

What you are doing, Counterpoint, typical FUD, trying to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to try to discredit something that we 99% know to be true.

laygrylls
I agree with you in in the main.
Not sure about the motivation though. Why would the Russians want him. They had him and didn’t think there was any risk in swapping him years ago. I’m inclined to think it’s a rogue Russian agent and not state sponsored. Russia is corrupt and disorganised. Skripal must have seriously compromised many whilst giving information to us. A revenge attack?
Anyhow. That’s my (latest) theory!

Did I read/hear/think up(!) somewhere along the line the hypothesis that Mr. Skripal could have been a double agent? I also find it unusual that the daughter of someone supposedly considered to be a traitor by Russia, was seemingly able to travel freely back and forth to this country.

I'm not an inveterate conspiracy theorist, but I do think it should be acknowledged that all governments and their component individuals (yes, even here ) are capable of being economical with the truth when they think it's desirable.

^We know thousands of chemical structures that are lethal
well you might ,I don't know one .And I bet I'm not alone .

Why should it be made public knowledge ?*

It has to be made public knowledge (now) since Boris has been shouting its name from the rooftops and seems quite prepared to take my country to the brink of war with the most powerfully equipped nation on Earth - i.e. Russia.

And since it doesn't matter if they revealed the chemical structure (at least release a formula) because, as you suggest, most of the public won't be able to manufacture it.

This is in contrast to what you previously offered as the reason for non-disclosure - make your mind up, please!

Say they named the chemical and published the structure, what would it show?

Go back to the beginning and ask yourself why it was necessary for Boris to tell us what it was called and that seemingly only Russia can make it.

Everything rests on the name (Russian term) and the structure (Russian synthesis).

Without these, you can believe your 99% (figure above) like the sheeple that you seem to be, so far, or start asking why Boris&May want us to demonize Russia. (Think weapon sales and fossil fuel thefts that we haven't quite managed yet.)

Russians are free to travel, even if they have dodgy relatives. The iron curtain has been opened.

Skripal was arrested in 2004, he is out of date. No doubt brilliant for historical context talks, but 13 years out of date.

Maybe personal attacks and attempts to shut down others should be avoided. It is nice to see many facets of an argument / discussion.

Oh, and btw, larrygrylls, since you are keen to employ your Okham's razor: please explain why Russia would;
(1) spend some £40 million poisoning someone with Polonium
(2) and now spend some few million not quite poisoning a pensioner and his daughter.

I know Russia is super-rich, but come on - if they wanted to assassinate anyone there are much, much cheaper methods. Not to mention a method inherently preferred by would-be assassins - anonymity.

If it's rogue then Russia needs to state how such a lethal weapon got into the hands of a rogue player.

For some like counterpoint absolutely nothing that the opwc could possibly say would satisfy them.

Counterpoint,

'Everything rests on the name (Russian term) and the structure (Russian synthesis).'

There is no way any nation on earth will reveal how much it knows about another nation's secret programmes.

'I know Russia is super-rich, but come on - if they wanted to assassinate anyone there are much, much cheaper methods. Not to mention a method inherently preferred by would-be assassins - anonymity.'

Russia is not super rich. Nonetheless £40 mio (taking your word for this number) is not a lot for any half way meaningful nation state. When it came to Litvinenko, Russia never believed we would discover how he died. And, at the same time, pictures of his slow death would send a clear warning to other would-be-traitors (in Putin's eyes).

With regard to Sergei Skripal, I suspect they did not want to poison his daughter. None of us know enough to comment on that. I suspect she may have touched something that the planners/assassins did not anticipate.

Interestingly, Counterpoint, like most purveyors of FUD, you have not offered us your alternative reality. Far easier to ask questions than to answer them. If you seriously believe the Russians did not poison the Skripals or that they were incapacitated by something other than Novichok, please enlighten me as to who did poison the Skripals and what agent was used?!

In the world of espionage we are never going to know the full truth but it is far easier to keep a conspiracy secret in a country like Russia than the UK, with a genuinely free media.

I know who I choose to believe.

Exactly. And May gave them that way out right at the start didn't she?

Either it was a state sanctioned poisoning or the Russians had lost control of their supply. At no point since that ultimatum was given have the Russian government acted in a way that makes them look innocent.

Instead they've just tried to muddy the waters.

Yes. I agree that Russia has to 8nvestigate what the hell happened, if it is a rogue agent. it’s a shame there cannot be a bit more cooperation from all parties to get to the bottom of it.
Could it be from one of the former soviet satellite states?
I just think the degree of certainty is not quite as “ certain” as is being made out so I wouldn’t want any major decisions being made on this. Like cutting off all channels if communication for instance.

How do the Russian or any one act in a way to make them look innocent?

counterpoint don't be rude ,don't tell me to make my mind up ! I was quoting what I had heard on the radio .

I made no remarks as to whether the public could or could not make this poison.

The results of analysis by the 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

Detailing the structure won't alter that confirmation ,

Just announced, as predicted (by me) we are now likely to be fighting alongside our friends the Saudis; you know, the ones I said a few weeks ago were behind our anti-Russia stance, the same women-subjugating Saudis Boris&May sold all those weapons to a few weeks ago. Yes, we are now going to get them to deploy our weapons all over Syria so that we can sell them some more.

Once again, I reiterate, we are on the wrong side!

(And peridito if being told to make your mind up distresses you more than admitting you are an unfiltered mouthpiece for something you heard on the radio, then no wonder Boris&May can say what they like and so few question their validity.)

At the risk of, yet again, being called a Russian troll (yawn), out of respect, a small act of diplomacy, merely extending the hand of friendship to a much-maligned nation, let us remember and give thanks to Yuri Gagarin on this, his anniversary:

On April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, made history at the age of 27 by completing a single orbit of Earth in approximately 108 minutes. Gagarin’s journey is still regarded as a key moment in space history that paved the way for all future space endeavors that followed.

And recall, that unlike our 'friends', the Saudis that suppress women, here is another example of a great Russian helping women to follow their calling:

Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman to go into space (Vostok 6, 1963) and was trained by Gagarin.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime.html

Seems the U.K. is not whiter than white when it comes to illegal chemicals.

Mmm, Nursy does that mean the UK has been stock piling chemical weapons in the last decade? Purely to help resolve conflicts of course.

Heyduggeesflipflop do you have anything to contribute to the thread apart from slagging off counterpoint ?

does that mean UK has been stock piling chemical weapons in the last decade? Purely to help resolve conflicts of course

No I don’t think so however I think it means we have been selling components when we shouldn’t have.
Our Government sold sodium fluoride to Syria during a period when it was widely suspected the regime was stockpiling dangerous substances. Although it granted export licences it denied that it had actually sold the substance but it now appears they did.