Novichok - fake news or Russian attack?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That use of nerve gas or shooting by a Russian agent isn't prevented by anything the US has that the UK or others don't.

OIC. No I wasn’t referring to that when I mentioned Russia’s reach and the US capabilities. I was talking about Russian annexation of resource-rich or strategic areas in former Soviet republics.

When I commented, the British government had laid down an ultimatum to the Russian government over this nerve agent incident, which the Russian government ignored. Regardless of who was responsible, each government has to engage in some posturing until they have more information.

[Nearly Sane]

OIC. No I wasn’t referring to that when I mentioned Russia’s reach and the US capabilities. I was talking about Russian annexation of resource-rich or strategic areas in former Soviet republics.

When I commented, the British government had laid down an ultimatum to the Russian government over this nerve agent incident, which the Russian government ignored. Regardless of who was responsible, each government has to engage in some posturing until they have more information.

If the Russians planned it they don't need further information. If the British govt don't have sufficient info then they don't have to posture, it's a choice

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

  And trusting the Russian govt isn't  suggested by Craig's blog. so not sure what point you are making?

I am making the point that I don’t trust the Russian government. Which is why I said I don’t trust the Russian government.

What made you think that my post was saying that Craig suggests trusting the Russian government? Craig’s blog says:

“I write as someone who believes that agents of the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on Chechnya.”

[Nearly Sane]

I am making the point that I don’t trust the Russian government. Which is why I said I don’t trust the Russian government.

What made you think that my post was saying that Craig suggests trusting the Russian government? Craig’s blog says:

“I write as someone who believes that agents of the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on Chechnya.”

  It's your use of But - since as we both agree Craig's blog doesn't say you should what's the point of the But?

By the way, when did you meet Craig?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If the Russians planned it they don't need further information. If the British govt don't have sufficient info then they don't have to posture, it's a choice

Not necessarily - it depends on how much Putin has control over the actions of the SVR or people they use.

It’s a political choice - if the British govt didn’t posture I think the media and large parts of the electorate who have criticised May’s backing down in Brexit negotiations will have lots more ammunition against her suitability as a leader.

[Nearly Sane]

Not necessarily - it depends on how much Putin has control over the actions of the SVR or people they use.

It’s a political choice - if the British govt didn’t posture I think the media and large parts of the electorate who have criticised May’s backing down in Brexit negotiations will have lots more ammunition against her suitability as a leader.

So it isn't something they have to do - it's a choice as I said

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

  It's your use of But - since as we both agree Craig's blog doesn't say you should what's the point of the But?

By the way, when did you meet Craig?

I enjoyed writing “but”. It seemed to flow well from my previous point about not trusting the British government. Craig’s blog was an interesting read.

When do you think I met Craig?

[Nearly Sane]

I enjoyed writing “but”. It seemed to flow well from my previous point about not trusting the British government. Craig’s blog was an interesting read.

When do you think I met Craig?

So it's essentially a pointless but as so many are.


As to meeting Craig, just you referring to him as Craig.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So it isn't something they have to do - it's a choice as I said

It was a wry figure of speech about the posturing - I sometimes use figures of speech when I write posts. Didn’t know it would confuse you whereby you took it literally.

I think it’s obvious that actions carried out by governments are choices.

Most actions are a choice when you are an adult except dying I suppose, unless you commit suicide. Even if someone is pointing a gun at your head you don’t have to do what they say - you can choose to get shot.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So it's essentially a pointless but as so many are.

Yes - similar to the many pointless posts people make on here questioning pointless “buts”.

As to meeting Craig, just you referring to him as Craig.

I’m on a phone - I can’t be bothered to type more than Craig. Why - is there a rule about meeting people before using only their first name...or were you making another pointless observation?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - similar to the many pointless posts people make on here questioning pointless “buts”.

I’m on a phone - I can’t be bothered to type more than Craig. Why - is there a rule about meeting people before using only their first name...or were you making another pointless observation?

A rule? No, a custom yes, and given your but appeared tpmake it look as if you were making an argument you weren't, I don't see it as pointless that it was picked up. I am just glad to have been of help to clear up your what you meant.

[Nearly Sane]

It was a wry figure of speech about the posturing - I sometimes use figures of speech when I write posts. Didn’t know it would confuse you whereby you took it literally.

I think it’s obvious that actions carried out by governments are choices.

Most actions are a choice when you are an adult except dying I suppose, unless you commit suicide. Even if someone is pointing a gun at your head you don’t have to do what they say - you can choose to get shot.

And the implication from the figure of speech is that the govt has very little choice here, I disagree. I think it's following it's own narrative and just saying that they are constrained politically needs to be justified. I don't think you have managed to do that.

[Spud]

i woukdn’t trust the British government after the Iraq dossier fiasco, where they took uncorroborated evidence from a single British Intelligence source against the advice of intelligence experts to build a case for invading Iraq.

But I don’t trust the Russian government or their intelligence services either.

Our government started off in the right manner, being slow to blame Russia. But now they have acted without respect for the Russian government's insistence that it was not involved in the attack. According to the rules of the international convention on chemical weapons, they should have provided Russia with a sample of the nerve agent and allowed 10 days for a response. I agree with what Jeremy Corbyn said today. They should be working with the Russians (who have after all just finished beating up ISIL), not provoking them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A rule? No, a custom yes, and given your but appeared tpmake it look as if you were making an argument you weren't, I don't see it as pointless that it was picked up. I am just glad to have been of help to clear up your what you meant.

Sorry but you might have noticed that you can’t impose your personal customs on this forum. People just tend to ignore them. You could learn to be more tolerant of people who don’t follow your customs but that’s up to you.

Sure, feel free to pick up on all buts and examine their use and context, if that’s an additional service you provide this forum. My experience on here is that when I say I don’t trust my government in these situations, some posters take that to mean I am supporting the foreign government’s position. The “but” was to make clear that it would be incorrect to infer that I trusted the Russian government based on my mistrust of the British government.

BUT if it seems an unnecessary word and bothers you, just keep flagging that in your usual  roundabout, quirky manner rather than immediately and straightforwardly highlighting and querying the “but” in your first response. I’ll just respond to any points that I think actually make sense and help further a discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry but you might have noticed that you can’t impose your personal customs on this forum. People just tend to ignore them. You could learn to be more tolerant of people who don’t follow your customs but that’s up to you.

Sure, feel free to pick up on all buts and examine their use and context, if that’s an additional service you provide this forum. My experience on here is that when I say I don’t trust my government in these situations, some posters take that to mean I am supporting the foreign government’s position. The “but” was to make clear that it would be incorrect to infer that I trusted the Russian government based on my mistrust of the British government.

BUT if it seems an unnecessary word and bothers you, just keep flagging that in your usual  roundabout, quirky manner rather than immediately and straightforwardly highlighting and querying the “but” in your first response. I’ll just respond to any points that I think actually make sense and help further a discussion.

How much did you pay for the straw in this post?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And the implication from the figure of speech is that the govt has very little choice here, I disagree. I think it's following it's own narrative and just saying that they are constrained politically needs to be justified. I don't think you have managed to do that.

No that’s not the implication. It was a sarcastic observation about playing to their respective voters, hence the use of the word “posturing”. Since when does a govt have very little choice? Can you give me an example of an actual situation where you thought a govt had “very little choice” And what does “constrained politically” mean?

[Nearly Sane]

No that’s not the implication. It was a sarcastic observation about playing to their respective voters, hence the use of the word “posturing”. Since when does a govt have very little choice? Can you give me an example of an actual situation where you thought a govt had “very little choice” And what does “constrained politically” mean?

you seem to be arguing against your own post now.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How much did you pay for the straw in this post?

Once you’ve posted a few more of these I can put together a little game of Nearly Sane bingo.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

you seem to be arguing against your own post now.

Thanks - another one for the Nearly Sane bingo collection.

[Nearly Sane]

Once you’ve posted a few more of these I can put together a little game of Nearly Sane bingo.

And your mirroring here gives me House!

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks - another one for the Nearly Sane bingo collection.

When you are indulging in the game playing repeating the 'joke' in two posts just looks clumsy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

When you are indulging in the game playing repeating the 'joke' in two posts just looks clumsy.

Not sure if I want to include this one in the Nearly Sane bingo - not snappy enough. Please reword if you want it to make the final cut.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure if I want to include this one in the Nearly Sane bingo - not snappy enough. Please reword if you want it to make the final cut.

Actually rather than the badinage, I would be more interested in talking about the questions around the use of nerve agents by whomever.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Our government started off in the right manner, being slow to blame Russia. But now they have acted without respect for the Russian government's insistence that it was not involved in the attack. According to the rules of the international convention on chemical weapons, they should have provided Russia with a sample of the nerve agent and allowed 10 days for a response. I agree with what Jeremy Corbyn said today. They should be working with the Russians (who have after all just finished beating up ISIL), not provoking them.

Corbyn seems to be getting a lot of criticism from his own MPs  - based on a script that MPs are claiming political leaders are supposed to follow when their country is “threatened”. Corbyn’s response seems reasonable - he wants evidence. May is probably hoping this situation will improve her public image, so I think she is more concerned about headlines and creating a perception in her Cabinet that she is up to the job of taking on Russia than she is about the rules of the international convention on chemical weapons.

[Nearly Sane]

Lot of criticism on web for the SNP reaction which seems to follow the Russia bad narrative