Jump to content

Absolute shocker


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Reads to me like Porton Down are saying they can't establish the source and never would have been able to, that their evidence needs triangulated with other evidence to establish the origin.

Of course you will have the two sides of the coin equally unable to understand this. The BoJos who see evidence as absolute confirmation and those who see lack of absolute confirmation as a rebuttal of the theory of Russian origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

Reads to me like Porton Down are saying they can't establish the source and never would have been able to, that their evidence needs triangulated with other evidence to establish the origin.

Of course you will have the two sides of the coin equally unable to understand this. The BoJos who see evidence as absolute confirmation and those who see lack of absolute confirmation as a rebuttal of the theory of Russian origin.

Uh huh. The crucial point being they said porton down had confirmed it is russian.  'categorically'.  Now porton down say that's not possible.  Our government have been lying in an attempt to Lin the blame on Russia.

The natural reaction of anyone with a quarter of a brain should be to ask why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody believes a word Boris says, not even himself. Porton Down said weeks ago that they could only confirm that it was a nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, not where that particular sample was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Nobody believes a word Boris says, not even himself. Porton Down said weeks ago that they could only confirm that it was a nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, not where that particular sample was made.

No the British government said that.  It is also developed by the UK, USA and France.  Probably others too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Putin has been given the power to order the assassination of "those slandering the individual occupying the post of president of the Russian Federation".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6188658.stm

Is the slant the BBC puts on something the UK has been doing for a hundred years you mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Peppino Impastato said:

Is the slant the BBC puts on something the UK has been doing for a hundred years you mean. 

It's a black and white law, it's not open to interpretation. Who has been assassinated merely for badmouthing the Queen or Prime Minister in the last hundred years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

It's a black and white law, it's not open to interpretation. Who has been assassinated merely for badmouthing the Queen or Prime Minister in the last hundred years?

We'll never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's a black and white law, it's not open to interpretation. Who has been assassinated merely for badmouthing the Queen or Prime Minister in the last hundred years?

Maybe there's a white Fiat Panda in the Russian equivalent of Porton Down.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's a black and white law, it's not open to interpretation. Who has been assassinated merely for badmouthing the Queen or Prime Minister in the last hundred years?

You've got me there.

Can I think of anyone who has had anything bad to say about Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Theresa May?
Not sure I can think of anyone.

.. and as for the idea that anyone has ever had anything bad to say about the Queen - utterly ridiculous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

It's a black and white law, it's not open to interpretation. Who has been assassinated merely for badmouthing the Queen or Prime Minister in the last hundred years?

Do you speak Russian?  Of course it's open to interpretation. 

The UK has been extra judicially killing people it considers a threat to both national security and it's economic interests, including democratically elected leaders, for at least a hundred years. Just cause the language is more obtuse (and you'd think you'd have learned by now the BBC is hardly an objective source) makes no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...