Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8,Anonymous,6Tricia, for Donating to support the site

One year later...

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
redsturgeon
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4417
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 415 times
Been thanked: 743 times

One year later...

#206768

Postby redsturgeon » March 10th, 2019, 7:26 am

Does anyone still remember the Skirpals?

Here is an interesting article that raises a few pertinent questions.

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingd ... ng-points/

John

Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3529
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 678 times
Been thanked: 1252 times

Re: One year later...

#206770

Postby Dod101 » March 10th, 2019, 7:54 am

It reminds me of a book I have just read on the Dr David Kelly 'suicide' in 2003, 'An Inconvenient Death' by Miles Goslett. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes which we are most unlikely to get to the bottom of, especially when vital evidence is embargoed for 50,60 or 70 years.

There seem to be a lot of legitimate questions about the Kelly death set out at length in this book and it would be interesting to see more than just a short article on the Skripal poisonings. The very fact that in both cases there has to be a good deal of stuff that cannot be disclosed because of state security means that inevitably there are going to be a lot of unanswered questions.

Dod

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#206952

Postby XFool » March 11th, 2019, 10:38 am

redsturgeon wrote:Does anyone still remember the Skirpals?

Here is an interesting article that raises a few pertinent questions.

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingd ... ng-points/

From the above link: "Craig Murray – The Skripal Case Explained in 10 Interesting Points"

I don't buy it! (The Craig Murray "10 Interesting Points")

The trouble is, it wouldn't be possible for me to fully comment the case he makes without, presumably, breaking TLF guidelines on quoting from other sources. So, here I will quote only the first sentence of his article and a short extract from the conclusion:

"I still do not know what happened in the Skripal saga, which perhaps might more respectfully be termed the Sturgess saga"

"Conclusion
I do not know what happened in Salisbury. Plainly spy games were being played between Russia and the UK, quite likely linked to the Skripals and/or the NATO chemical weapons exercise then taking place on Salisbury Plain yet another one of those astonishing coincidences.

What I do know is that major planks of the UK government narrative simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
"

Do not stand up to the "scrutiny" of Craig Murray, that is.

"I [still] do not know what happened..."

Well yes! Neither do I. If only Craig Murray had stopped there, but then there wouldn't be a story. I have little doubt that, in an incident of this type, with the army, Intelligence Services, police and Porton Down involved there are likely loads of things that we (and Craig Murray) don't know about! But that doesn't stop Murray offering us his untrained interpretations of events of which, just like me, he likely knows nothing. Does that make sense to you? To me it doesn't.

Without quoting let's just have a look at one of his 10 points, indeed his very first - the matter of the "purity" of the novichok sample found on the Skripal's doorknob.

Murray makes much of the reported alleged "purity" of the sample and how it could not possibly be "pure" after spending several days out in the open on the Skripal's doorknob. But I can see a problem.

1. This is Murray's untrained opinion. - I take it he is no more trained in forensic science than I am, so his opinion on this matter is likely as valueless as mine would be. Many things that seem 'obvious' to an uninformed amateur are not so obvious to a professional.

2. What exactly did Porton Down mean by "pure"? - Murray interprets this, AFAICS, as uncontaminated by the local environment: dust, human sweat, insects, pollen... He declares this unbelievable (see point 1 above). But what if it means something else? What if it means the active chemical agent, while contaminated by local factors, was itself identifiably chemically pure, i.e. was hi-grade, lacking signs of say chemical precursors used in it's synthesis?

Now I don't know the answer to either of the above points. The question is, does Craig Murray?

Whenever there is an unusual 'event' in the world, to which most people only have cursory, and at best second hand information, there are many waiting, both on the Internet and elsewhere, to hang their (exciting and interesting) 'story' onto the publicly available 'dots'.

redsturgeon
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4417
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 415 times
Been thanked: 743 times

Re: One year later...

#206957

Postby redsturgeon » March 11th, 2019, 11:07 am

Well I found it interesting...I guess the alternative is when anything odd happens that leaves many unanswered questions we just shrug our shoulders and go, "meh".

Or we just accept the official line and if we are still around in 30 years time perhaps we find out more.

John

Howyoudoin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 779
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: One year later...

#206969

Postby Howyoudoin » March 11th, 2019, 12:40 pm

I found his other points about who was first on scene to administer first aid to the Skripals (the head Doctor of the British Army who just happened to be walking past when they collapsed) and why the police sat on CCTV footage of the two Russian men for 3 months before telling the public, far more suspicious.

There are lots of questions that BOTH governments refuse to answer in this case, which means they're both up to something in my book, even if one is 'wrong' and one is 'right'.

HYD

avconway
Lemon Slice
Posts: 289
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:18 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: One year later...

#206984

Postby avconway » March 11th, 2019, 2:19 pm

redsturgeon wrote:Does anyone still remember the Skirpals?

Here is an interesting article that raises a few pertinent questions.

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingd ... ng-points/

John


I love it - democracy works only to the extent that the demos knows stuff, and the demos only knows stuff to the extent that it is cynical, that it asks questions of power and speaks truth to power.

I accept with sorrow that the bulk of the demos is gullible, that it swallows what it is told with scarcely a doubt, but I hold real disdain for those who pour scorn on questioners, or attempt to close down questioning by censorship, or by casting ridicule, insult or abuse upon questioners.

A quote attributed to George Orwell and others runs thus, in various forms:-
In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.

I suspect it can be reduced to six words, applicable at all times:- “Seeking truth is a revolutionary act.”

The qualities that produce genius have been variously expressed, but one I like runs thus: “Genius is the art of knowing the right questions to ask.” (plus the diligence to pursue the answers, I expect.)

I salute the simple revolutionries who ask questions and pursue answers.

********************
Within the last month I was at an evening lecture attended by perhaps a 100 people to hear an Israeli professor of history speak on “The Crisis In Gaza”, during which he inevitably strayed into a review of the historical context: how did we get to where we are. Current events, no matter where, are always played out against an historical context.

“I knew nothing about that history,” said a middle-aged English-woman, drinking tea with me afterwards, a woman of 40-45 years, not much older than I am.

“Why not?” I said, “It's not ancient history, it's all on record, and much of it is British history, it's all easy stuff to find out.”

“Well, it's not taught, is it?” she said. “Nobody tells us, do they?” (And you don't think to ask questions either, do you I thought.)

“Can I get you more tea?” I said. I then suggested she read State of Terror by the Jewish author Thomas Suárez, 'How terrorism created modern Israel'.

“Just read the last chapter,” I said, “that will be enough to set you wondering.”

*********************
Craig Murray asks questions. Questions that get him into trouble. I like that.

avconway

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#207003

Postby XFool » March 11th, 2019, 3:50 pm

redsturgeon wrote:Well I found it interesting...I guess the alternative is when anything odd happens that leaves many unanswered questions we just shrug our shoulders and go, "meh".

Yep. Boringly, I think it does indeed come down to that. I realise many will find this difficult to accept. Sorry! :(

redsturgeon wrote:Or we just accept the official line and if we are still around in 30 years time perhaps we find out more.

Yes. If we are around in 30 years time, that is. Even then, the official documents might be heavily "redacted".

Of course it is conceivable that some new, proper evidence comes out in time. We will just have to wait and see. Isn't life a bi...?

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#207015

Postby XFool » March 11th, 2019, 4:41 pm

Howyoudoin wrote:I found his other points about who was first on scene to administer first aid to the Skripals (the head Doctor of the British Army who just happened to be walking past when they collapsed)

Why? Did that doctor actually save them personally by medical intervention or more simply alert the authorities? What exactly are we supposed to conclude from their presence?

Howyoudoin wrote: and why the police sat on CCTV footage of the two Russian men for 3 months before telling the public, far more suspicious.

Really? Why exactly? Firstly, when it comes to the police, I'm afraid I wouldn't be so quick to discount plain old fashioned incompetence. ;)
But how about this: The police "sat on" the CCTV footage because they were asked to - by the intelligence service. Why? Because the intelligence agencies wanted to find out as much about the identified men as they could before allowing the police to go public and thereby flag up the information to the Russians.

Is that the real explanation? I haven't a clue! :)

I just made it up on the spur of the moment, but it sounds 'plausible' to me. It might be so, it might be total nonsense. I have no idea. But look, that is how easy it is to come up with off the cuff 'explanations' of otherwise unexplained facts. It's better than Murray's, because it is at least an explanation, rather than merely a "this looks funny to me" non-explanation. So, I reckon I'm ahead in the "explanation" stakes. ;)

Howyoudoin wrote:There are lots of questions that BOTH governments refuse to answer in this case, which means they're both up to something in my book, even if one is 'wrong' and one is 'right'.

But you don't know what they are "up to" do you? Any more than I do, or Craig Murray does. Or even if they (we?) are "up to" anything at all. The only thing we know for certain is that somebody was certainly up to something. The rest, AFAIAC, is a matter of plausible conclusions vs. wild, unfounded speculations. That's my point.

redsturgeon
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4417
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 415 times
Been thanked: 743 times

Re: One year later...

#207022

Postby redsturgeon » March 11th, 2019, 5:18 pm

You're right xfool, nothing to see here, let's not waste our time in idle speculation when we could be doing something useful, like trying to change people's minds on Brexit.

John

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#207023

Postby XFool » March 11th, 2019, 5:19 pm

avconway wrote:I love it - democracy works only to the extent that the demos knows stuff, and the demos only knows stuff to the extent that it is cynical, that it asks questions of power and speaks truth to power.

I disagree. It is this automatic "cynical" (un)thinking that is, IMO, the problem. EVERYTHING is increasingly 'explained' in this manner. This has nothing whatsoever to do with speaking "truth to power". Asking questions, yes, but not if the outcome is merely a string of uncorroborated speculations, unconstrained by reality. There's no truth there. Also IMHO, if you are going to be cynical, you need to be "cynical" about the right things!

avconway wrote:I accept with sorrow that the bulk of the demos is gullible, that it swallows what it is told with scarcely a doubt, but I hold real disdain for those who pour scorn on questioners, or attempt to close down questioning by censorship, or by casting ridicule, insult or abuse upon questioners.

It cannot be greater than my disdain for those who peddle their pseudo-theories and pseudo-explanations under the guise of "speaking truth to power".

avconway wrote:A quote attributed to George Orwell and others runs thus, in various forms:-
In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.

Bring it on! What did Orwell have to say about a time of universal bullshit?

avconway wrote:I suspect it can be reduced to six words, applicable at all times:- “Seeking truth is a revolutionary act.”

Increasingly, I find I can agree with that statement. ;)

avconway wrote:The qualities that produce genius have been variously expressed, but one I like runs thus: “Genius is the art of knowing the right questions to ask.” (plus the diligence to pursue the answers, I expect.)

It surely helps if you can tell the difference between genuine answers, supported by reality, and the opposite? Then you will be in a position to diligently pursue the answers.

avconway wrote:I salute the simple revolutionries who ask questions and pursue answers.

Yeah. We surely need them in these times...

avconway wrote:Craig Murray asks questions. Questions that get him into trouble. I like that.

I'd like it a lot better if he stuck to providing genuine answers to genuine questions, based on known and reliable facts.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#207026

Postby XFool » March 11th, 2019, 5:32 pm

redsturgeon wrote:You're right xfool, nothing to see here, let's not waste our time in idle speculation when we could be doing something useful, like trying to change people's minds on Brexit.

Now you really are asking for the impossible! ;)

Howyoudoin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 779
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: One year later...

#207080

Postby Howyoudoin » March 11th, 2019, 9:27 pm

XFool wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote:I found his other points about who was first on scene to administer first aid to the Skripals (the head Doctor of the British Army who just happened to be walking past when they collapsed)

Why? Did that doctor actually save them personally by medical intervention or more simply alert the authorities? What exactly are we supposed to conclude from their presence?

Howyoudoin wrote: and why the police sat on CCTV footage of the two Russian men for 3 months before telling the public, far more suspicious.

Really? Why exactly? Firstly, when it comes to the police, I'm afraid I wouldn't be so quick to discount plain old fashioned incompetence. ;)
But how about this: The police "sat on" the CCTV footage because they were asked to - by the intelligence service. Why? Because the intelligence agencies wanted to find out as much about the identified men as they could before allowing the police to go public and thereby flag up the information to the Russians.

Is that the real explanation? I haven't a clue! :)

I just made it up on the spur of the moment, but it sounds 'plausible' to me. It might be so, it might be total nonsense. I have no idea. But look, that is how easy it is to come up with off the cuff 'explanations' of otherwise unexplained facts. It's better than Murray's, because it is at least an explanation, rather than merely a "this looks funny to me" non-explanation. So, I reckon I'm ahead in the "explanation" stakes. ;)

Howyoudoin wrote:There are lots of questions that BOTH governments refuse to answer in this case, which means they're both up to something in my book, even if one is 'wrong' and one is 'right'.

But you don't know what they are "up to" do you? Any more than I do, or Craig Murray does. Or even if they (we?) are "up to" anything at all. The only thing we know for certain is that somebody was certainly up to something. The rest, AFAIAC, is a matter of plausible conclusions vs. wild, unfounded speculations. That's my point.


XFool,

Rather than answer my points and RS' points, please can you answer each of Craig Murray's points?

You're being very selective in what you want to answer. Of course NONE OF US KNOW what happened that day in Salisbury. But at least Craig Murray is disputing what we have been told on the news, whereas you? You have no real ideas of your own, you're only out to denigrate others ideas.

You're like the Labour Party. No ideas of their own but take the mick out of the Tory Party.

HYD

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#207100

Postby XFool » March 11th, 2019, 11:29 pm

Howyoudoin wrote:
XFool wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote: and why the police sat on CCTV footage of the two Russian men for 3 months before telling the public, far more suspicious.

Really? Why exactly? Firstly, when it comes to the police, I'm afraid I wouldn't be so quick to discount plain old fashioned incompetence. ;)
But how about this: The police "sat on" the CCTV footage because they were asked to - by the intelligence service. Why? Because the intelligence agencies wanted to find out as much about the identified men as they could before allowing the police to go public and thereby flag up the information to the Russians.

Is that the real explanation? I haven't a clue! :)

I just made it up on the spur of the moment, but it sounds 'plausible' to me. It might be so, it might be total nonsense. I have no idea. But look, that is how easy it is to come up with off the cuff 'explanations' of otherwise unexplained facts. It's better than Murray's, because it is at least an explanation, rather than merely a "this looks funny to me" non-explanation. So, I reckon I'm ahead in the "explanation" stakes. ;)

XFool,

Rather than answer my points and RS' points, please can you answer each of Craig Murray's points?

You're being very selective in what you want to answer. Of course NONE OF US KNOW what happened that day in Salisbury. But at least Craig Murray is disputing what we have been told on the news, whereas you? You have no real ideas of your own, you're only out to denigrate others ideas.

On the contrary! As I demonstrated in my response to your very own query - about the police sitting on CCTV footage - I HAVE come up with an idea of my own. It doesn't mean it's true, or that I know it to be true (I don't), that's not the point. It is an uninformed, but plausible enough sounding, answer to an uninformed question. What more do you expect? Does Craig Murray actually supply any answers, as claimed in the headline to his piece? If he does, what are they? Do you seriously expect me to have all the answers? Do you?

IMO, what Craig Murray is doing in his article can perhaps best be described as 'leveraging ignorance'. - "I don't really know much about something; so here are my uninformed opinions about it." It's a common enough ploy in the world of conspiracy theorising. The less anyone actually knows about the facts of any matter the more room they have for open ended speculations. The more you know - both intrinsically, as with the knowledge of a specialist and extrinsically, being acquainted with the full facts of the case - the MORE constrained you are in reaching a conclusion. With a situation like the Skripals, by its very nature, the public's knowledge of the facts is going to be limited. Giving non specialists almost unlimited scope for their speculations. What's new?

Anyway, why stop at one year ago? What about 35 years ago? Before even the (cough!) 'murder' of Dr David Kelly the goto UK conspiracy theory of the day was the death of Hilda Murrell. Remember her? From Wikipedia:

"Hilda Murrell (3 February 1906 – 23? March 1984) was a British rose grower, naturalist, diarist and campaigner against nuclear power and nuclear weapons. She was abducted and found murdered five miles from her home in Shropshire."

Until this in 2003:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Mur ... rew_George

But, as Wikipedia continues in its introduction:

"Despite a conviction based on DNA and fingerprint evidence and a confession, the case remains controversial and subject to conspiracy theories."

Because old conspiracy theories, like old soldiers, never die. They simply fade away.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4024
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: One year later...

#235035

Postby XFool » July 8th, 2019, 10:47 pm

Revealed: anti-nerve agent drug was used for first time in UK to save novichok victim

The Guardian


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alaric, BobbyD and 3 guests