Bladders
Twats everywhere
Personally, I can't wait for the Russian invasion.
I’d resist , so more of them would have to sit on me [emoji847]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Putin's Least Believable BS Yet?
- Thread starter Tom Hark Preston Park
- Start date
I’d resist , so more of them would have to sit on me [emoji847]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
You are just basing that off of a caricature. It's hollywood thinking.
I know a few Brits. Some cannot stand the intelligence services over here, and some believe everything they say. We demonize each other, but Russia and the UK are more alike than most people are led to believe, in terms of both the good and the bad.
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyypersonally, i can't wait for the russian invasion.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
As in my previous post, this is hollywood thinking, it's a caricature, it's not realistic at all.
& How can you say that no country would dare to do it in a way which leaves the most doubt, but they would dare to do it in a way which leaves no doubt at all. That doesn't make any sense.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Yes, But No, But Yes.....
Oh feck stix, why can't we just nuke each other and get it over with, let us press that re-set button on the world...
I'm kinda done with all these lies, within lies, it is hard work, worrying about the future, who to believe, etc mad leaders, mad religions....
roll on death..............
I often agree with your posts but on this count I'll have to disagree.
It is not Hollywood thinking, it's looking at stuff that has happened, is happening and making an informed opinion based on the evidence.
Might be right, might be wrong but to suggest that I'm trusting everything our government, police, intelligence services etc say means you don't know me (having recently had personal experience that they can be full of shit).
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
What "stuff that has happened" do you mean? This has been going on for a while, but I would argue that it's all worthy of close examination. You can go back to Crimea and the downing of the passenger airliner, and if you take those things at face value then I can see where you are coming from, although A being true and B being true doesn't make C true. Moreover I would suggest that those other things which have happened suffer some of the same problems that this does. There is a lot more politics going on than there is objective assesments of evidence.
There seems to be a greater will to demonize Russia than there is a will to objectively and dispassionately assess evidence, unfortunately.
This thread is a case in point and shows the effect this ends up having. Nobody knows for certain the truth of what happened here, but everyone seems convinced that they do.
I'm just saying don't get played, but either side.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
For example, it was recently announced that:
"The US, France, Germany and Canada have agreed with the UK's assessment that Russia's government "almost certainly" approved the Salisbury poisoning."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45439388
This is an Orwellian use of language. An honest English translation of "Almost certianly" = "Not certainly". If they wanted to be straightforward and clear, they would say the truth, "We don't know for certain". The use of terms like "Almost certainly", which is pretty much a contradiction in terms, reveals a lack of straightforwardness and honesty which makes me uncomfortable, and for me, undermines their integrity. It shows a desire to paint things a certain way, regardless of what the evidence can actually prove.
This all just reminds me of WMD and Iraq. If Russia can be said to have "form", so can we.
"The US, France, Germany and Canada have agreed with the UK's assessment that Russia's government "almost certainly" approved the Salisbury poisoning."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45439388
This is an Orwellian use of language. An honest English translation of "Almost certianly" = "Not certainly". If they wanted to be straightforward and clear, they would say the truth, "We don't know for certain". The use of terms like "Almost certainly", which is pretty much a contradiction in terms, reveals a lack of straightforwardness and honesty which makes me uncomfortable, and for me, undermines their integrity. It shows a desire to paint things a certain way, regardless of what the evidence can actually prove.
This all just reminds me of WMD and Iraq. If Russia can be said to have "form", so can we.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Bloody hell, that makes perfect sense....
I give up......
Lies, Lies, Lies.....
I never hated Russians, they are like us being played, actually all normal people are being played, by world, banking, political & religious leaders.....
"divide and rule"
Hate it, Hate it, Hate it....
Stop the world I wanna get off........
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Well i'd encourage a little more optimism than that, you're right it does suck though. The best thing people can do is to make sure they judge things carefully for themselves and don't "outsource" your outlook to the media and politicians, because when it comes to being informed, they don't have your best interests at heart. Be wary of people who expect you to believe something without them having to prove it.
& I hope nobody takes what I am saying as being a defence of Putin, I don't say what I am saying for Putin's sake, I say it for ours.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
What, other than a completely implausable explanation. CCTV of them near to the sripals at the time of the attack and traces of Novichok in their hotel room?!
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,590
What do you mean "more to this than meets the eye"? If these two guys weren't assassins then what were they doing on the streets of Salisbury on consecutive days? We know Russians try to bump off traitors, they've been doing it for years.
WTF? Almost certainly means that it is not certain, but it is close to certain. So it is honest in saying that it is not certain. To be dishonest (lack honesty, in your words) would be to claim it was certain. If you want such claims, look at what Putin has said. He's not said he doesn't think these guys have done it, he's said they're civilians and not criminals. Where has he got that from? How does he know? Where is his months of investigative work to clear them?
nicko31
Well-known member
Unfortunately, its becoming increasingly hard for us to take the high moral ground, when our government supports neo-fascist regimes in Eastern Europe.
Strange times...
Strange times...
Juan Albion
Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class
Agreed. Dingodan's argument fell down the moment he wrote 'An honest English translation of "Almost certianly" = "Not certainly".' Very little in life is 100% certain these days, "almost certain" is usually as strong as anyone can go.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
First, let me just be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do it, I'm saying the evidence is not sufficient to prove that they did. Evidence does matter.
They were in the area, yes, is that proof, no. I'd like to see proof as much as you, but proof is required.
As for the traces of Novichok in the hotel room, that's not quite as clear cut as it might seem at first. Two swabs tested positive, and when the same areas were retested, the tests came back negative. It was suggested that the first swabs destroyed the only traces which existed. Maybe that's true. Could the first tests have been false positives? I don't know, but let's assume they weren't, the traces must have been incredibly low. Which also explains why the results of the tests were not disclosed to the hotel or guests staying there at the time until several months later (unlike other traces which resulted in immediate public warnings, areas being sealed off, benches being incinerated, etc).
Remember the advice which was given at the time, for people who had been in certain locations in the area, was to destroy their clothing. Because being in the area may have exposed people to trace amounts of the substance. These two were in the area and could have come into contact with trace amounts for that reason. This was clearly considered a serious possibility, hence the advice for people to clean items they may have had on them and even to destroy their clothing. Remember, at the time they were in the area nobody knew what had happened, and no cleanup had taken place.
As for whether the first tests were even accurate, especially given the negative results on the second tests, it would have helped if those samples were treated the same way as all the other samples. In order to ensure objectivity all samples were supposed to be sent to the OPCW (The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons). The hotel room samples were never sent to the OPCW for testing.
None of this proves them innocent by any stretch of the imagination, but a headline like "traces of Novichok found in hotel room" doesn't tell the whole story, and can lead people to draw conclusions which aren't as solid as they might first appear.
Last edited:
daveinplzen
New member
- Aug 31, 2018
- 2,846
Maybe they did, maybe they didnt.
Porton Down is very close to Salisbury. Isnt that where we make our killer nerve agents?
Porton Down is very close to Salisbury. Isnt that where we make our killer nerve agents?
You haven't seen the evidence. You realise that, right?
I also haven't seen it, but I'm not making claims.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
I don't mean to sounds like a pedant, but I asked what "it is pretty safe to say they did it." was based on, and you replied that it was based on their presence in the area and the trace amounts in the hotel room. It certainly seemed like you were making (or at least defending) the claim that "it is pretty safe to say they did it.".
I do mean to be a pedant - I did not say that at all, you are thinking of another poster.