Log in:  

Register

World Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re:

13 Mar 2018 15:51

python wrote:^you brought an analogy to doping and doping agents...

you understand, that when as scientists we delve into a doping case, unlike a fanboy would, we normally deal with a formal knowledge which in one way or another makes certain facts and bits (both preliminary and later) available and free of speculations such as, a formal and official uci release on a banned substance found. or the additional circumstances, not yet confirmed officially, but uncovered by credible investigative journos....later, we get lucky to read and firm up, not necessarily agreeing on the interpretations, the the official verdicts like the cas or wada etc....in one word, there is enough information from several informed and credible sources, for an unbiased student to try to weigh the evidence.

in the politically-laced poisoning case like above - there is only one source and only one side so far doing the accusing and refusing to publish the back up materials. think about it, to take such a one-sided info, including what was the poison origin, who was the inventor, where he lives etc could be true as much as a cover up. the litvinenko case still is full open of holes and strange details that the brits refused to make public...

as i said, this is a very dirty and dark business. it is imo naive to take the info fed to the public w/o any back up evidence.

but to believe into some version is certainly anyone's right. one only needs to be intellectually honest that it ist their opinion not yet based on evidence.

without engaging into an argument, which cant be had yet w/o the independent evidence, i [b]believe it could be a false flag op. or as probable as anything else.[/b]
V for Vendetta in real life? LOL. It is a possibility I guess, but one so much less likely than the obvious alternative. IMO, a scientist would not ascribe these possibilities as similar based on the current evidence.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,280
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

13 Mar 2018 16:09

many here have learned what is obvious to a hard-core partisan oblivious too a wider narrative. 'z' for a zealotry. :surprised:
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,833
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

13 Mar 2018 17:38

Then you should be so kind as to expound on your false flag hypothesis to provide that 'wider narrative', including who is the likely culprit, why they carried it out, how they obtained the nerve agent, and what they hoped to gain from the operation. It should be pretty simple if indeed the false flag operation is as likely as Russian involvement. If you cannot do so, then it is completely illogical to assume that they are equally likely possibilities.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,280
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

13 Mar 2018 17:55

you need to expound on the 'evidence' that always, INVARIABLY, draws you to the same old and predictable conclusions that hardly ever deviate from a - lets put it mildly for now - extreme emotional reactions against a particular country. your posting record is THE proof. that your logic. invariably.

you will even call the persons who dont agree with your take, and who you never met nor know, the stooges of that country. all while whining when some posters give you back your own coin. eat your own meal.

it was already said, but i doubt it can be past a partisan, that the one-sided evidence by one party only is not where i will bite.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,833
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

13 Mar 2018 18:20

My only emotion is bemusement at the pretzel logic some will do to avoid an inconvenient conclusion that runs against their deep-rooted dogmas. And your posts are a veritable gold mine. Thank you for that!

As for the rest, you provide no evidence for the false flag option. So how can it be equally probable? A hypothesis that is supported by no evidence is a very weak one indeed.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,280
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

13 Mar 2018 18:29

djpbaltimore wrote:My only emotion is bemusement at the pretzel logic some will do to avoid an inconvenient conclusion that runs against their deep-rooted dogmas. And your posts are a veritable gold mine. Thank you for that!

As for the rest, you provide no evidence for the false flag option. So how can it be equally probable? A hypothesis that is supported by no evidence is a very weak one indeed.

Don't you sometimes think it's really weird that after some event, there's absolutely no evidence, but within minutes to hours there's a fully developed narrative? Even weirder is that the exact same phrases get used over and over again starting with the very first reporting, almost as though they're talking points prepared in advance.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

13 Mar 2018 18:32

Within minutes and hours the press was reporting the two as having being under the influence of Fentanyl.

Naturally once it was released that the person in question was a Russian spy traitor people aligned the story with previous Russian assassinations that have taken place on UK soil.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

13 Mar 2018 18:48

macbindle wrote:Within minutes and hours the press was reporting the two as having being under the influence of Fentanyl.

Naturally once it was released that the person in question was a Russian spy traitor people aligned the story with previous Russian assassinations that have taken place on UK soil.

Which assassinations are those? The Litvinenko thing is all kinds of weird. And added to that list is...?

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

13 Mar 2018 18:55

(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

13 Mar 2018 19:22

python wrote:^you brought an analogy to doping and doping agents..


without engaging into an argument, which cant be had yet w/o the independent evidence, i believe it could be a false flag op. or as probable as anything else.


And yet the UK government did not point any fingers until yesterday, 8 days after the initial incident. They've had 8 days to consider all possibilities including false flag operations.

The UK government hasn't directly accused the Russian state of the killing, but has asked the Russians to account for how their chemical weapon was used.

Almost certainly we are not being told the backstory, it is the spy game after all, but I would be very surprised if the Russians were not involved.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

13 Mar 2018 19:24

macbindle wrote:http://uk.businessinsider.com/list-alleged-russian-assassinations-in-britain-litvinenko-2018-3

Hahaha. So basically any prominent Russian who dies of natural causes on British soil, plus some shady Brits including this gem:

"Elichaoff was a businessman and the former husband of TV presenter Trinny Woodall. He had battled painkiller addiction, and reportedly rolled himself off a shopping centre roof after a string of oil investments went wrong. "

Which literally has nothing to do with Russia whatsoever.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

13 Mar 2018 19:28

They are of course, unproven.

The Litvenenko murder is unproven because Russia refused to extradite the suspects. One of them is now a politician.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

13 Mar 2018 21:08

ScienceIsCool wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:My only emotion is bemusement at the pretzel logic some will do to avoid an inconvenient conclusion that runs against their deep-rooted dogmas. And your posts are a veritable gold mine. Thank you for that!

As for the rest, you provide no evidence for the false flag option. So how can it be equally probable? A hypothesis that is supported by no evidence is a very weak one indeed.

Don't you sometimes think it's really weird that after some event, there's absolutely no evidence, but within minutes to hours there's a fully developed narrative? Even weirder is that the exact same phrases get used over and over again starting with the very first reporting, almost as though they're talking points prepared in advance.

John Swanson
As with Python, I would invite you to come up with your own narrative, present it to us and compare it to the conventional wisdom. The notion that everybody is rushing to judgement is belied by the fact that the US is still on the fence officially, even after May's announcement.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,280
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

13 Mar 2018 23:32

python wrote:^you brought an analogy to doping and doping agents...

as i said, this is a very dirty and dark business. it is imo naive to take the info fed to the public w/o any back up evidence.

but to believe into some version is certainly anyone's right. one only needs to be intellectually honest that it ist their opinion not yet based on evidence.

without engaging into an argument, which cant be had yet w/o the independent evidence, i believe it could be a false flag op. or as probable as anything else.


The analogy to doping was only to make the point that these substances can be designed with the aim of avoiding the letter of a weapons agreement. That is quite well established. Almost all of my post was concerned with indisputable facts about nerve agents in general . The only thing I said which is not either factual or which I presented as speculation is that Novichok was the agent used. Yes, it’s possible that it really wasn’t, that the British government is lying about this. Run with that if you want, but rather than focus on why--do the British really want to pick a fight with Putin right now?--i would focus on what actually happened. As I said, the delayed action is a little surprising, and even more so is the delay in warning the public about the danger. Those are facts (unless you're questioning whether it was even a nerve agent, in which case why would the government scare the locals unnecessarily, possibly opening itself up to lawsuits?) that I think stand out more to a scientist than speculation, almost always unprovable, about false flags or whatever.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more the false flag theory doesn’t make sense. If I understand the thinking behind this, government agents poisoned the Skripals, right? Either they used a nerve agent—didn’t have to be Novichok, because they could control the information about it that was released—or something else. If it was something else, there was no need to fabricate a story about contamination in the restaurant, and alarm the public, and as I said, raise the possibility of lawsuits.

OTOH, if it was a nerve agent (which having been factually or falsely identified as Novichok would make the Russian connection more plausible), and there really was contamination, why did they wait a week to inform the public? If this was all planned by the government, they surely would have realized the possibility of contamination at places other than where the Skripals were found. Maybe it wasn’t planned that way, maybe the Skripals were supposed to be affected immediately, but in any case, certainly when the Skripals were found some place distant from where the poisoning took place, the government should have notified the public sooner. Maybe not immediately—they didn’t want it to appear as if they knew it was a nerve agent before they could have had time to examine the Skripals—but certainly sooner than a week. In fact, even before they could have confirmed it was a nerve agent, the government could have reasonably decided to quarantine any places where the Skripals had been seen earlier. A suspicion of a nerve agent would not be suspicious, if I may put it that way.

What’s wrong with this reasoning? Have at it.
Last edited by Merckx index on 14 Mar 2018 01:22, edited 2 times in total.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,748
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

13 Mar 2018 23:59

djpbaltimore wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:My only emotion is bemusement at the pretzel logic some will do to avoid an inconvenient conclusion that runs against their deep-rooted dogmas. And your posts are a veritable gold mine. Thank you for that!

As for the rest, you provide no evidence for the false flag option. So how can it be equally probable? A hypothesis that is supported by no evidence is a very weak one indeed.

Don't you sometimes think it's really weird that after some event, there's absolutely no evidence, but within minutes to hours there's a fully developed narrative? Even weirder is that the exact same phrases get used over and over again starting with the very first reporting, almost as though they're talking points prepared in advance.

John Swanson
As with Python, I would invite you to come up with your own narrative, present it to us and compare it to the conventional wisdom. The notion that everybody is rushing to judgement is belied by the fact that the US is still on the fence officially, even after May's announcement.


I guess I differ in that I don't feel it necessary to figure out why the sky is blue when people keep telling me it's green. I'm okay at this point to say that the assertions don't match what can be easily observed. I don't know anything beyond that and don't have enough data to make an alternate hypothesis. That said, some of the alternate explanations can't be discounted, also because of a lack of data.

Johnny Science <--- Thanks aphronesis, I really like that one - But I really am John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

14 Mar 2018 13:20

I agree in principle that in an outrageous event like this, even outrageous notions can be entertained. But my main point was that the reason false flag theories and the like are not being talked about in any detail is because they would not hold up well to scrutiny. This is a case where Occam's razor seems to apply.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,280
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

14 Mar 2018 13:42

Indeed. You'd have to be a bit of a fukwit to entertain the notion of a false flag operation given that the UK stands to look weak as a result of this event.

Not only that but you'd have to be blind to the probability that this event is a reaction to, or a reprisal for something the UK has done.

....and that is even before you get to the notion of somebody within the UK military being willing to splash a chemical weapon around on the streets of Salisbury.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

14 Mar 2018 14:35

Merckx index wrote:
python wrote:^you brought an analogy to doping and doping agents...

as i said, this is a very dirty and dark business. it is imo naive to take the info fed to the public w/o any back up evidence.

but to believe into some version is certainly anyone's right. one only needs to be intellectually honest that it ist their opinion not yet based on evidence.

without engaging into an argument, which cant be had yet w/o the independent evidence, i believe it could be a false flag op. or as probable as anything else.


The analogy to doping was only to make the point that these substances can be designed with the aim of avoiding the letter of a weapons agreement. That is quite well established. Almost all of my post was concerned with indisputable facts about nerve agents in general . The only thing I said which is not either factual or which I presented as speculation is that Novichok was the agent used. Yes, it’s possible that it really wasn’t, that the British government is lying about this. Run with that if you want, but rather than focus on why--do the British really want to pick a fight with Putin right now?--i would focus on what actually happened. As I said, the delayed action is a little surprising, and even more so is the delay in warning the public about the danger. Those are facts (unless you're questioning whether it was even a nerve agent, in which case why would the government scare the locals unnecessarily, possibly opening itself up to lawsuits?) that I think stand out more to a scientist than speculation, almost always unprovable, about false flags or whatever.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more the false flag theory doesn’t make sense. If I understand the thinking behind this, government agents poisoned the Skripals, right? Either they used a nerve agent—didn’t have to be Novichok, because they could control the information about it that was released—or something else. If it was something else, there was no need to fabricate a story about contamination in the restaurant, and alarm the public, and as I said, raise the possibility of lawsuits.

OTOH, if it was a nerve agent (which having been factually or falsely identified as Novichok would make the Russian connection more plausible), and there really was contamination, why did they wait a week to inform the public? If this was all planned by the government, they surely would have realized the possibility of contamination at places other than where the Skripals were found. Maybe it wasn’t planned that way, maybe the Skripals were supposed to be affected immediately, but in any case, certainly when the Skripals were found some place distant from where the poisoning took place, the government should have notified the public sooner. Maybe not immediately—they didn’t want it to appear as if they knew it was a nerve agent before they could have had time to examine the Skripals—but certainly sooner than a week. In fact, even before they could have confirmed it was a nerve agent, the government could have reasonably decided to quarantine any places where the Skripals had been seen earlier. A suspicion of a nerve agent would not be suspicious, if I may put it that way.

What’s wrong with this reasoning? Have at it.
... i have to run to my daughter's performance. will address your points later. at least you still are asking questions and don't pretend like some above that unknowns are hard facts. to me everything starts, i repeat starts with identifying an agent, in a manner that's transparent and verifiable. it should include some sort of independent international mechanism (which does exist) examining the samples. i perfectly realize that russia wont help if it is 'their word against the brit's word'.

i repeat, what we have so far is exclusively the british version and claims, the british refusal to share the chemistry and the british ultimatum they knew in advance will be rejected.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,833
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: World Politics

14 Mar 2018 15:05

I am pretty sure Russia was also involved in the Sharon Tate murder and the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa...I know it because Theresa May and Rachel Maddow said so.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,065
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re:

14 Mar 2018 15:20

djpbaltimore wrote:I agree in principle that in an outrageous event like this, even outrageous notions can be entertained. But my main point was that the reason false flag theories and the like are not being talked about in any detail is because they would not hold up well to scrutiny. This is a case where Occam's razor seems to apply.

I suppose one way to analyze this one is to take a look at what the end result is, and then work backwards. In this case a confrontation has materialized between Russia and the UK that may escalate in some unknown ways. So I guess the first question is to ask who has the motive and means to manufacture the confrontation?

For one, I don't think Russia has a motive even if it does have ample means.
Second, I don't think the UK has a motive either although it certainly has the means.
Third, the UK may have been willingly or unwillingly used by a third party which seems the most likely scenario.

From there, I guess you could narrow it down to a smallish list of suspects that might have a motive to create conflict and the sophistication to pull it off. Israel or the Saudis, perhaps?

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests

Back to top