How are things over there in the Caliphate. Any new no-go zones?Perhaps this have to do with future of UK
Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
Great, Britain!
The Brits have just provided my previous article, The Truthers and The Fakers, with a tidy little case study: the very next day after I published it Theresa May’s government stepped into its role as one of the world’s premier Fakers and unleashed the next installment of fake news on the Skripal poisoning. We can use this as training material in learning how to spot and discard fakes.
The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is “highly likely” that the Kremlin ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a “Russian-made” chemical weapon called “Novichok.” In turn, from what we already knew, it is highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. As I explained in the previous article, it is not our job to establish what really happened. We would be unable to do so with any degree of certainty without gaining access to state secrets. But we don’t need to; all we need to do is establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the British government’s story is a foolishly, incompetently concocted fabrication. Doing so will then allow us to properly classify the British press, which repeats this nonsense as fact, and the British public, which accepts it unquestioningly at face value. Then we can drop the erroneous appellation “great”—because great nations don’t act so stupidly.
First, by applying the usual investigative technique of identifying means, motives and possibilities, we see that the Russian government had none while Theresa May's government had all of them.
The means: Russia has renounced its chemical weapons, is subject to international inspections and no longer has a chemical weapons programme. Britain, like the United States, is ignoring its treaty obligations. It has not renounced its chemical weapons, has not been subject to international inspections and maintains a chemical weapons programme in Porton Down, a few kilometres from where the poisonings occurred. Porton Down experts claim to have identified the chemical agent allegedly used, which implies that they had some on hand.
The motive: Russia gave Skripal to Britain during a spy exchange a few years ago and had no reason to pursue it. Causing an international scandal just before the World Cup was held in Russia would have been considered an act that would have ended the career of any Russian official. On the other hand, Theresa May's government had a great need to divert attention from its disastrous Brexit negotiations, to get support for its other misfortunes, and at the same time would have thought it was good policy to please his masters in Washington by organizing a provocation against Russia.
The opportunity: The poisoning took place on British soil, below a street leading to a British chemical weapons factory, and the poisoned person lived under the watchful eye of the British special services. Clearly, the British have had ample opportunity to do so, while this remains to be demonstrated for the Russians.
Thus, if the now traditional British legal standard of "highly probable" is applied, it seems "very likely" that the Kremlin has nothing to do with this. But this still leaves open the question of what precisely the Kremlin had to do with because it is "very likely" that what the British government claims to have done did not actually happen.
The British claim that two Russian government agents, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Bochirov (sic) flew from Moscow to Britain on an Aeroflot flight, flew to Salisbury, sprayed Novitchoks on the handle of Skripal's door and then returned. They carried the Novitchok in a bottle of perfume, which they then threw into a park. Skripal and his daughter touched the door handle, then went out for lunch and a walk, and a few hours later succumbed synchronously to the poison, also contaminating a police officer who had come to their rescue. All three eventually recovered. A few weeks later, a local addict found the perfume bottle in a park and gave it to his girlfriend, who sprayed herself with the substance and died while she was getting sick before recovering.
Novitchok is a chemical weapon designed to kill on contact and instantly destroy entire cities. It is known to have been synthesized by laboratories in several countries, including one in the former Soviet Union. It has never been synthesized in Russia. We know that it is far too deadly to have been used as described and to have produced such light effects.
First, if Petrov and Bochirov had indeed tried to transport this volatile substance in an ordinary perfume bottle rather than in a tightly sealed military-grade container, they would not have arrived at their destination but would have died along the way. Second, if they had tried to spray Novitchok on a door handle without wearing protective equipment, they would have been found dead on Skripal's doorstep. Third, if Skripal and his daughter had touched a door handle contaminated with Novitchok, they would also have been found dead on the same threshold. Based solely on this information, we can be certain that the poison in question was not Novitchoket, whatever it may have been, it was not administered as described.
What remains of British history? That two people arrived from Moscow to spray a defective poison on a doorknob and then threw it away? (He killed only one in five people.) The British claimed that their names were false, as were their papers, expecting us to believe that we don't know who they are, but that we know that they are Russian agents. Well, one of their names is certainly wrong on the test: it is Bachirov (a very common family name in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan) and not Bochirov. Why would a Russian agent put a typo in his fake name? It seems "very likely" that this misprint is of British origin.
Then we are told that these two arrived directly from Moscow with Russian passports, which means that they had to obtain visas at the British Embassy in Moscow in a process that involves taking fingerprints and other biometric data. This should make them easy to identify to find their real names, but it has been five months and the British authorities have still not bothered to do so. It is therefore "most likely" that they are not real Russian agents, but British concoctions smelling of amateurism.
And then we have this real jewel of incompetence: the British showed surveillance video footage of these two characters walking separately at the same place at the airport at exactly the same time, exactly to the second: 02/03/2018 16:22:43. Apparently, the British government expects everyone to believe that the Russians have mastered time travel. On the other hand, we should find it much more credible that the British government is full of weak-minded and incompetent degenerates.
This raises a question: what is so great about Britain? Perhaps the term "great" needs to be replaced by another, appropriate, less flattering one? It's up to you to judge.
Dimitri Orlov
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
ClubOrlov: Great, Britain!
The Brits have just provided my previous article, The Truthers and The Fakers, with a tidy little case study: the very next day after I published it Theresa May’s government stepped into its role as one of the world’s premier Fakers and unleashed the next installment of fake news on the Skripal poisoning. We can use this as training material in learning how to spot and discard fakes.
The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is “highly likely” that the Kremlin ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a “Russian-made” chemical weapon called “Novichok.” In turn, from what we already knew, it is highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. As I explained in the previous article, it is not our job to establish what really happened. We would be unable to do so with any degree of certainty without gaining access to state secrets. But we don’t need to; all we need to do is establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the British government’s story is a foolishly, incompetently concocted fabrication. Doing so will then allow us to properly classify the British press, which repeats this nonsense as fact, and the British public, which accepts it unquestioningly at face value. Then we can drop the erroneous appellation “great”—because great nations don’t act so stupidly.
First, by applying the usual investigative technique of identifying means, motives and possibilities, we see that the Russian government had none while Theresa May's government had all of them.
The means: Russia has renounced its chemical weapons, is subject to international inspections and no longer has a chemical weapons programme. Britain, like the United States, is ignoring its treaty obligations. It has not renounced its chemical weapons, has not been subject to international inspections and maintains a chemical weapons programme in Porton Down, a few kilometres from where the poisonings occurred. Porton Down experts claim to have identified the chemical agent allegedly used, which implies that they had some on hand.
The motive: Russia gave Skripal to Britain during a spy exchange a few years ago and had no reason to pursue it. Causing an international scandal just before the World Cup was held in Russia would have been considered an act that would have ended the career of any Russian official. On the other hand, Theresa May's government had a great need to divert attention from its disastrous Brexit negotiations, to get support for its other misfortunes, and at the same time would have thought it was good policy to please his masters in Washington by organizing a provocation against Russia.
The opportunity: The poisoning took place on British soil, below a street leading to a British chemical weapons factory, and the poisoned person lived under the watchful eye of the British special services. Clearly, the British have had ample opportunity to do so, while this remains to be demonstrated for the Russians.
Thus, if the now traditional British legal standard of "highly probable" is applied, it seems "very likely" that the Kremlin has nothing to do with this. But this still leaves open the question of what precisely the Kremlin had to do with because it is "very likely" that what the British government claims to have done did not actually happen.
The British claim that two Russian government agents, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Bochirov (sic) flew from Moscow to Britain on an Aeroflot flight, flew to Salisbury, sprayed Novitchoks on the handle of Skripal's door and then returned. They carried the Novitchok in a bottle of perfume, which they then threw into a park. Skripal and his daughter touched the door handle, then went out for lunch and a walk, and a few hours later succumbed synchronously to the poison, also contaminating a police officer who had come to their rescue. All three eventually recovered. A few weeks later, a local addict found the perfume bottle in a park and gave it to his girlfriend, who sprayed herself with the substance and died while she was getting sick before recovering.
Novitchok is a chemical weapon designed to kill on contact and instantly destroy entire cities. It is known to have been synthesized by laboratories in several countries, including one in the former Soviet Union. It has never been synthesized in Russia. We know that it is far too deadly to have been used as described and to have produced such light effects.
First, if Petrov and Bochirov had indeed tried to transport this volatile substance in an ordinary perfume bottle rather than in a tightly sealed military-grade container, they would not have arrived at their destination but would have died along the way. Second, if they had tried to spray Novitchok on a door handle without wearing protective equipment, they would have been found dead on Skripal's doorstep. Third, if Skripal and his daughter had touched a door handle contaminated with Novitchok, they would also have been found dead on the same threshold. Based solely on this information, we can be certain that the poison in question was not Novitchoket, whatever it may have been, it was not administered as described.
What remains of British history? That two people arrived from Moscow to spray a defective poison on a doorknob and then threw it away? (He killed only one in five people.) The British claimed that their names were false, as were their papers, expecting us to believe that we don't know who they are, but that we know that they are Russian agents. Well, one of their names is certainly wrong on the test: it is Bachirov (a very common family name in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan) and not Bochirov. Why would a Russian agent put a typo in his fake name? It seems "very likely" that this misprint is of British origin.
Then we are told that these two arrived directly from Moscow with Russian passports, which means that they had to obtain visas at the British Embassy in Moscow in a process that involves taking fingerprints and other biometric data. This should make them easy to identify to find their real names, but it has been five months and the British authorities have still not bothered to do so. It is therefore "most likely" that they are not real Russian agents, but British concoctions smelling of amateurism.
And then we have this real jewel of incompetence: the British showed surveillance video footage of these two characters walking separately at the same place at the airport at exactly the same time, exactly to the second: 02/03/2018 16:22:43. Apparently, the British government expects everyone to believe that the Russians have mastered time travel. On the other hand, we should find it much more credible that the British government is full of weak-minded and incompetent degenerates.
This raises a question: what is so great about Britain? Perhaps the term "great" needs to be replaced by another, appropriate, less flattering one? It's up to you to judge.
Dimitri Orlov
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
ClubOrlov: Great, Britain!
A chacun sa bête noire.... moi c'est sancho, toi celui ci.
Tu vas finir par nous l'enerver.
Brexit: Carney warns no-deal could see house prices plunge
Brexit: Carney makes property crash warning
Brexit: Carney makes property crash warning
Many people would respond to that with 'good', especially in London. But frankly Carney is an idiot. He ruined Canada's economy and then escaped to the UK.
What? Get a ruling at the European ICOJ, which we will ignore. There are a lot more EU companies in the UK than the other way around. Remember that before throwing stones from the top of your greenhouse.
There is simply no way we owe the EU anything. We've been the second highest net contributor for 45 years, whilst 70% of the other countries have been recipients. If anything, you owe us. The EU's argument is basically thus: "You paid us money, so you owe us money." So what if the net recipients leave the EU and say the same? I think I know what the answer would be. There'll be nuclear warheads flying your way before you get a cent of that money.
Have you played any involuntary games of chicken with lorries lately?
London is bad, but nowhere near as bad as Paris. That place is a different country now, it's unrecognisable.
Please don't waste your neurons on Russian propaganda blogs.
Even if it's to troll a Brit.
Either 5 year-old or 5-year-old is used. Hyphens are a very flexible thing, in time they often disappear, like in 'cooperation'. Used to have a hyphens 30 years ago.And you can't write your own native language correctly.
I do agree, English is my second language! Guilty as a charged!
Actually, I fixed my sentence already, even before you pointed. But fair enough! My English is not the best! My Marathi is. Wanna test me on that?
How about your own prowess at English? '5 year-old' OR '5-year-old'?
Wait! I thought you guys had space technology all figured out in '71. Why do you need Israel for a JV?
I love the British hypocrisy: "You had Russian help for a supersonic missile, you fail!" "We are doing a JV with Israel and we are Great Britain".
Why do you partner the Russians?
Afraid it wasn't. The first nuclear reactors used for electricity were actually British. It also developed its own H-Bomb (Grapple X and Y) before using any US designs and still makes its own warheads.
The publicly available knowledge base is larger now than in the 1960s. Computing power is also massively improved for design and simulation work. Think 1960s computer tech. relative to now.
But how much help were the Russian engines?
Different countries are different. But in the US and UK, there can certainly be private rocket technology but their will obviously be rules surrounding the control of that information.
Nope!
Are You Using Hyphens Correctly?
Is “Year Old” Hyphenated or Not?
Hyphenated Adjectives
Maybe you should indeed go to 'iscool'. Is English the only language you can communicate in? Is it your native language? If it is either, better make it perfect!
Last edited:
And who appointed you to be the global peace-maker, eh? If there was a war in the region, you should ask the UNSC to deploy the UN Peacekeeping forces. Why is it that NATO thinks it can do whatever it pleases and the UK feels that the sun has not yet set on the British Empire?
No, it also means that:
A. You got yourself a shitty deal with consequences you never foresaw.
And/OR
B. You are greedy.
Let me break it down to you:
You arrive in Iraq, in the tow with the USA and destroy the dominant power in the region, ie, Saddam Hussein and his minions whom the USA has only helped in power. All under the pretext that there are WMDs in the region. Your inspectors found none. You and the USA leave because the war was becoming too expensive and leave a power-vacuum with incompetent leaders and lots of weapons. A brutal regime of Islamic terrorists fill that power-vacuum and topples the incompetent puppets you left with the very tools you left in the region. People flee the region and you have a refugee crisis in Europe with more refugees that you can count flooding your country and other European countries. You cry foul and ask for immigrants and refugees to go back! Nobody learnt the lesson that one should not topple a regime without understanding who will replace it.
Last edited: