Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

Is this the thread where we also start talking about "9/11 was an inside job"?

Getting heavy in here.

Zero evidence vs Evidence is all that is in view. Russia very well could have done it, but I don't think it is too much to ask for evidence before throwing diplomacy out the window. If Russia did, the UK should have no problem connecting someone of theirs to the absurdly brazen attack, especially with all the CCTV around London. They never claimed any such ability to do so, but rather they assert it was Russia because of the chemical used. That isn't nearly good enough.

If you blindly trust everything a government claims just because it is yours or an ally to yours, you apparently haven't spent much time studying the history of geopolitics. It isn't the slightest bit conspiracy theorist to know that lies can come from government authorities as dozens of cases have been admitted by those who did them and more have had hard evidence come out. If it is something to sway your view of another nation, I wouldn't recommend trusting anything that any government says without evidence. We citizens are the ones who end up dying when relations break down.

Still, it doesn't even have to be lies from the UK if Russia didn't do it. It is also perfectly possible that the UK simply misread the data and jumped to false assumptions. Citizens shouldn't be quick to have their backs on the resulting decisions if they haven't shared any information with us except the type of weapon used. It got heavy in here when the original article let us know that several countries were shutting down diplomacy with one of the strongest countries in the world. I'm just trying to help people realize the gravity of such a thing and to ask their governments to prove the decision was rightful.

Did you know that through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons there have already been agreed upon international standards of investigation for substantiating claims of chemical weapon attacks against a nation? And that the UK has not demonstrated any compliance to these standards before levying heavy diplomatic retaliation and rallying their allies to join them? As I said before, this is how wars begin. This is the process. We have seen it again and again and again and millions continue to lose their lives over bullshit like this. That is why we built establishments like the OPCW.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Feeling a bit Russian in here.

 

[Dice]

I'm not getting baited into a battle of taking childish shots at each other.

 

[The_Observer]

Zero evidence vs Evidence is all that is in view. Russia very well could have done it, but I don't think it is too much to ask for evidence before throwing diplomacy out the window. If Russia did, the UK should have no problem connecting someone of theirs to the absurdly brazen attack, especially with all the CCTV around London. They never claimed any such ability to do so, but rather they assert it was Russia because of the chemical used. That isn't nearly good enough.

If you blindly trust everything a government claims just because it is yours or an ally to yours, you apparently haven't spent much time studying the history of geopolitics. It isn't the slightest bit conspiracy theorist to know that lies can come from government authorities as dozens of cases have been admitted by those who did them and more have had hard evidence come out. If it is something to sway your view of another nation, I wouldn't recommend trusting anything that any government says without evidence. We citizens are the ones who end up dying when relations break down.

Still, it doesn't even have to be lies from the UK if Russia didn't do it. It is also perfectly possible that the UK simply misread the data and jumped to false assumptions. Citizens shouldn't be quick to have their backs on the resulting decisions if they haven't shared any information with us except the type of weapon used. It got heavy in here when the original article let us know that several countries were shutting down diplomacy with one of the strongest countries in the world. I'm just trying to help people realize the gravity of such a thing and to ask their governments to prove the decision was rightful.

Did you know that through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons there have already been agreed upon international standards of investigation for substantiating claims of chemical weapon attacks against a nation? And that the UK has not demonstrated any compliance to these standards before levying heavy diplomatic retaliation and rallying their allies to join them? As I said before, this is how wars begin. This is the process. We have seen it again and again and again and millions continue to lose their lives over bullshit like this. That is why we built establishments like the OPCW.

It's surprising that there are still people who cannot see this and instead of thinking they just troll about it. No wonder our governments can do anything they want.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Did you know that through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons there have already been agreed upon international standards of investigation for substantiating claims of chemical weapon attacks against a nation? And that the UK has not demonstrated any compliance to these standards before levying heavy diplomatic retaliation and rallying their allies to join them? As I said before, this is how wars begin. This is the process. We have seen it again and again and again and millions continue to lose their lives over bullshit like this. That is why we built establishments like the OPCW.

Is this the same OPCW whose reports on Syria Russia has always rejected and investigations they vetoed ?

 

[Dice]

Is this the same OPCW whose reports on Syria Russia has always rejected and investigations they vetoed ?

Did I say a proper investigation had to appease Russia? I'm talking about justifying the diplomatic shutdown to citizens. If Russia did it then that is that, but assertions don't make reality. If they have the facts that lock it down, they need to share them, not treat the people like sheep to be herded with overconfident rhetoric.

They are still busy investigating, which shows they jumped to an early conclusion and now they need to dig up proof of it. That is not a desirable state of mind to have when investigating something. Now if the reality ends up being something else, they will be far less inclined to accept it because it would be extremely embarrassing after all this. Well that package came from somewhere, and it was physically left there by someone, so from where and by whom it was may be figured out in time, but will it be shared?

 

[MisterFalcon]

The UK does not need to prove anything to expel diplomats.

1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission.

 

[Dice]

Did I ever say it was a legal requirement upon them?

 

[llien]

Did I say a proper investigation had to appease Russia? I'm talking about justifying the diplomatic shutdown to citizens.

Would you please clarify exactly what kind of evidence would be "enough evidence"?
Being killed using military grade Russian made unobtanium apparently is not enough, just how much would be "enough".
Do we need to know the name of the person who did it?
Perhaps video footage?
Or do we, maybe, need audio, or wait, audio can be made up too, maybe video recording of Putin actually ordering someone to kill "traitor" in the middle of UK, using "Novitchok" and poisoning dozens of other UK citizen?
But then, even video evidence can be forged, hm...


You are literally looking at the picture with:
1) A "person" you know have killed before (Litvinenko)
2) That person holds bloodied knife with his/her initials on it, a knife that wounds people in that very specific way Litvinenko was deadly wounded
3) That dead body has exactly the wounds you would expect that knife to cause
4) That person just sent a "warning to traitors" on his/her major TV channel, that hiding in UK could be bad for your health
5) Nobody else had even remote interest in killing the victim

So what's else there to have reasonable doubt about? Ah, "maybe someone set this up", hell yes. But given that TV threats are part of the setup, that someone should be sitting somewhere in Kremlin.

 

[Dice]

I never demonstrated any doubt that Novitchok was used. Granted, they haven’t shared their samples with anyone else to confirm, but I am willing to believe them on that despite the fact I have seen some experts who are not so willing. I think you are overstating the rarity/exclusivity of it.

Yet because I ask for evidence connecting the weapon to the claimed offending party, as is standard practice for any crime, you seem to be trying to paint me as some kind of conspiracy theorist who will deny evidence of any kind.

You do this while simultaneously making hard connections between separate things using your pre-accepted narrative as verification for your pattern recognition like a conspiracy theorist does as you consistently become irate with those who don’t jump to the same conclusions as you.

I’m not sure if we can have a productive conversation with you behaving in this manner. I’m not certain what exactly would convince me. Context can change any type of data to be more or less convincing. I am simply saying the amount needed is more than the nothing they have provided.