Chemical attack: Opcw findings released

[Drummond]

Released just minutes ago, as I type -- the OPCW has now officially confirmed the initial UK assertions regarding the nerve agent deployed in Salisbury. We are now CONFIRMED in what we've been saying.

@Papokarlo (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3890) (.. who's been absent of late !) ... and any other pro-Russians reading ... OK, respond to THIS ...

https://news.sky.com/story/chemical-watchdog-confirms-novichok-poisoned-sergei-skripal-11327382


Independent chemical weapons scientists have confirmed that "high purity" novichok was used in the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

Tests carried out by experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) showed the nerve agent was found in environmental samples collected in Salisbury.

Blood tests also revealed that the chemical was found in blood samples taken from the Skripals and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, the police officer who first attended the scene.

The report from the OPCW says the chemical was "high purity" with a complete absence of contaminants.

Foreign secretary Boris Johnson called the results "conclusive".

"There can be no doubt what was used and there remains no alternative explanation about who was responsible - only Russia has the means, motive and record," he said.

The tests were carried out by four independent laboratories affiliated with OPCW and samples were transported under a "full chain of custody", the report said.

[Elessar]

Now the only question is, was Russia the physical and scientific source or just the scientific?
I tend to believe the former of the two.

[Drummond]

Now the only question is, was Russia the physical and scientific source or just the scientific?
I tend to believe the former of the two.

Russia is in a bad position on this, regardless of the answer to that question.

The 'official position' on Novichok has long been that none existed. Russia was supposed to have been the only country that ever produced it, having first invented its formula. The OPCW believed that Russia had destroyed its stocks of it, back in the 1990's, so, its existence today should be an impossibility.

So, something 'dodgy' is involved here, obviously. Russia cannot possibly come out of this smelling of roses !

Options:

1. Russia lied about destroying Novichok stocks, OR, has since manufactured more, which it now uses.
2. Russia sold stocks to other countries ... without declaring the fact, making them violators of existing regulations.
3. Russia simply provided information, allowing other countries to produce their own.

On options #2 and #3 ... nobody's ever come up with any reason why a country other than Russia would wish to target the Skripals for assassination. These options, therefore, to the best of anyone's understanding, don't make sense within that context. Option #3 should also be discounted on the grounds of the chemical's confirmed purity, which surely says that top-notch equipment and resources were involved in its manufacture.

Option #1, therefore, is the only one which really makes sense. Which accordingly makes Russia culpable for the Salisbury attack. And, only they have a motive for it ... one meant to serve as an example, sending a message, to warn Putin's enemies not to oppose him. Remember its timing, days before the Presidential election in Russia, after all.

The UK position is, and always has been, fully justified. QED.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now the only question is, was Russia the physical and scientific source or just the scientific?
I tend to believe the former of the two.

When two possibilities exist one has narrowed down the odds. However, the next question is what entities in the past has Russia either sold or given access to the chem weapons--or even what other nation's have that chem in pure form?
When the question exists and it has two possible answers one has not definitive proof, at least not yet.
Sure I would bet the odds on it being Russia --but-- and there is that but(regardless of how big or small it may be) if this is a frame up then
some truly devious and clever scam will very likely bear fruit.
So back to it being one of two possibilities.
If the goal is to find the guilty party and be 100% certain , then we are closer to that goal.
I know in the past Russia has sold weapons to other nations, and even our own nation has hidden chem weapons .
Yet even this has more solid legs than does the claim that Assad was the guilty party in chem attack in Syria, when the greatest benefit of those attacks has always went to the party that was attacked.
Examples of muslim duplicity in staging false attacks are easily found in the history of their doing so in regards to Israel.
However, certain people now seem to forget that.. hmmmmmmm.-Tyr

[Drummond]

When two possibilities exist one has narrowed down the odds. However, the next question is what entities the past has Russia either sold or given asses to the chem weapons--or even what other naton's have that chem in pure form?
When the question exists and it has two possible answers one has not definitive proof, at least not yet.
Sure I would bet the odds on it being Russia --but-- and there is that but(regardless of how big or small it may be) if this is a frame up then
some truly devious and clever scam will very likely bear fruit.
So back to it being one of two possibilities.
If the goal is to find the guilty party and be 100% certain , then we are closer to that goal.
I know in the past Russia has sold weapons to other nations, and even our own nation has hidden chem weapons .
Yet even this has more solid legs than does the claim that Assad was the guilty party in chem attack in Syria, when the greatest benefit of those attacks has always went to the party that was attacked.
Examples of muslim duplicity in staging false attacks are easily found in the history of their doing so in regards to Israel.
However, certain people now seem to forget that.. hmmmmmmm.-Tyr

In all modesty, I think my argument makes good sense. Russia is in violation of international agreements if it sold any such material to someone else. They've also misled the OPCW for a VERY long time, if that's true.

But, what about motive ? If the Russians weren't behind the Salisbury attack, who else would be, and certainly, WHY ? What had the Skripals done to offend anybody else ?

The purity of the sample tested argues against a country other than Russia having been its manufacturing base.

So, we can conclude Russia's culpability with considerable confidence. Which makes them, considering that a MILITARY GRADE NERVE AGENT was used, guilty OF A TERRORIST ACT.

We need to remember that fact. Russia, after this, cannot credibly claim to be anti-terrorist.

On Syria: if someone other than Assad's regime launched an attack .. again ... how were the material(s) obtained, much less deployed ?

I might even ask: is Russia responsible for THAT attack, too ?? ON CHILDREN, YET ??

I also ask: WHY has Russia blocked any move to have this independently investigated ? Tyr, I think that this is the fatal flaw in your argument. Russia has no reason to do such blocking, unless it wants independent forces kept well out of the area, unable to gather evidence. This makes NO SENSE WHATEVER, unless either Assad launched that attack, or, Russia itself did.

Russia has long since proven that it'll do anything to support Assad. I suggest that it's doing so, now.

[Drummond]

Tyr, Jim posted this in a 'news roundup' posting ...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/04/12/france-says-they-have-proof-syria-used-chemical-weapons-n2470321


Dozens of people died when bombs filled with toxic chemicals were dropped on the town of Douma Saturday. President Bashar al-Assad denied his government had anything to do with it. French President Emmanuel Macron, however, says he has proof.

"We have proof that last week chemical weapons, at least chlorine, were used by the regime of Bashar al-Assad," according to the French leader.


UK Prime Minister Theresa May has called an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss Britain's role in the response. Like Macron and Trump, she has not announced an absolute plan, but has said that "all the indications" suggest Assad was behind the attack.

Meanwhile, the United Nations failed to adopt three resolutions to allow an investigation into the chemical attack in Syria because of Russia's "no" votes. It is the 12th time Russia has used its veto to block action on Syria.