World Politics

Page 859 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
ScienceIsCool said:
So why didn't the attending nurse get sick even though she was in close contact?
It's a chemical, not bacteria or virus. It's not contagious once it's in the body.

Why did it takes hours instead of seconds to fall ill?
If it was novichok, they could have picked up traces of it, apparently at their home, which gradually worked it's way into their system. Or if you want to get a little wild, there was both novichok and BZ, and the two agents cancelled each other out. Nerve agents are generally AChE inhibitors, whereas BZ is an anti-cholinergic. IOW, nerve agents lead to an excess of acetylcholine, while BZ results in a deficit. In fact, BZ's effects are much like those of atropine, which is often used to treat nerve agent poisoning.

Why did they recover and not die?
AChE bound to nerve agent is gradually degraded and replaced by unbound enzyme. Generally speaking, if you don't die fairly quickly, you have a good chance of recovering.

By the way, even if it was BZ, that doesn't somehow prove it was a Western hoax. The agent has been around a long time, other countries have probably used it. Some even think the Russians used it back in 2003 during the theater siege. It's used to incapacitate, not to kill, but since its effects are somewhat unpredictable (think LSD on steroids), it hasn't been thought to be useful in war. It might be the kind of drug you would use to make some former spy you didn't like suffer, though.

While we're on this subject, did the Russians ever decide whether there was no gas attack in Syria, or there was, but it was perpetrated by the British? And are they really sure that two-thirds of the missiles were shot down?
Nah. You're more clever than that. A-234 is normally a liquid, which means any contact would be of lethal toxicity. That leaves the only possibility being an aerosolized method of application which would have contaminated a huge range of surfaces including all the Skripal's clothing.

The obvious implication is that even if the dose of A-234 was so small that it wasn't lethal, contamination would have been everywhere including on all of the first responders. But a singular policeman that was ancillary to the response was the only casualty. Why?

Okay, so now the questions. Why was there a considerable amount of A-234 in the blood sample that was provided weeks after the event, but without the following logical consequences?

- Delayed onset of symptoms
- Non-lethality

Also:

- Presence of BZ
- Lack of suspects, let alone a proposed method of synthesizing within the UK or a method of smuggling
- Lack of contamination
- Purpose or reason for admixture of AChE inhibitor and anti-cholinergic compunds
- Explanation of why Porton Down missed the BZ
- Lack of BZ contamination at the crime scene
- Where are the Skripals

Let's face it, the facts fit BZ poisoning. Subjects found incapacitated hours after exposure with no lethality. First responders not affected. Trace amounts of BZ in blood samples weeks after exposure. Now let's talk about the only ones who have outright lied about any of this...

Syria gas attack: It was both staged and did not occur. White helmets waited until a SAAF attack on Duma and did two things. They gathered bodies in an apartment building and pretended they were gas victims, which they filmed. Obviously not true because people can be seen wandering around the scene without protection. The second is that two Duma emergency doctors are on record that people burst into their ward yelling about a gas attack while doctors were responding to victims of the bombing attack, most of whom were suffering smoke and dust inhalation. The intruders responded by filming the chaos that ensued. Eff links. They're everywhere and I don't fool myself thinking anyone will look. White helmets are UK funded by the way.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
ScienceIsCool said:
"Lavrov added that the Swiss lab also pointed at the presence of the nerve agent A234 in the samples, but added that the lab noted that its presence in the samples appeared strange, given the substance’s high volatility and the relatively long period between the poisoning and the sample-taking." - https://nypost.com/2018/04/14/russia-swiss-lab-analysis-shows-nerve-agent-designed-in-west/

In other words the samples were spiked. Considerable quantities of A-234 means dead in seconds and all those in contact with them.

John Swanson
Do you know from where the samples were taken and by whom?

Thought not.

For someone who thinks science is cool you don't seem to understand the basics :D
My understanding is that the samples were provided by the UK to the OPCW who sent the samples to the Swiss lab which is one of five in the world certified for such analysis. Russia had spies/moles who obtained the unfiltered reports...

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Re:

macbindle said:
So you didn't think to ask why the UK would provide samples that included BZ if it was part of a British hoax attack?

Science, indeed.
OPCW protocol says they had to. The Skripal's status meant that Russia has DNA samples of both. Ergo, legit samples had to be provided which is why the UK delayed as many weeks as they could. Corollary, the BZ had degraded to trace status which is all the deniability the UK could purchase. Looks like it worked, though, which is mind boggling. How is this not obvious?

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Re:

macbindle said:
It's a convoluted conspiracy theory that is full of holes.
Poke away. Note that I haven't proposed any alternate theory. Simply that the UK is lying about what happened, and in a most obvious way.

John Swanson
 
The only sure fire lie is Boris Johnson's misquoting of the Porton Down scientists claiming that they had told him the substance was definitely from Russia

Note that the PD scientists publically refuted his claim, so that wouldn't sit well with your notion of a conspiracy. They chose to ignore the presence of BZ...or were prepared to be complicit in a British plot...but Boris Johnson's misquote was just a step too far for them?

Yerrite.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Re:

aphronesis said:
Not to worry, but that wasn’t the question.
The UK made numerous and very obvious lies concerning the Skripal affair. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this. Not sure why you dragged the US into this. I know... Next question is what lies? Phew. I'll revisit the whole timeline with you if you want, but it's not my desire.

John Swanson
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Nah. You're more clever than that. A-234 is normally a liquid, which means any contact would be of lethal toxicity. That leaves the only possibility being an aerosolized method of application which would have contaminated a huge range of surfaces including all the Skripal's clothing.

The obvious implication is that even if the dose of A-234 was so small that it wasn't lethal, contamination would have been everywhere including on all of the first responders. But a singular policeman that was ancillary to the response was the only casualty. Why?
No, it doesn't mean any contact would be lethal. It could be applied to some object like a door, where much of it would evaporate, and only very small amounts would contact people. Or it could be diluted before applying.

If the dose was so small it wasn’t lethal, how do you know it wasn’t on all the first responders? Did they submit clothing samples for analysis? I just pointed out they wouldn’t necessarily show any effects.

Okay, so now the questions. Why was there a considerable amount of A-234 in the blood sample that was provided weeks after the event, but without the following logical consequences?
The passage you quote doesn’t say there was “a considerable amount”. It just says there was some. Depending on what kind of sample contained it, that might not be surprising. Again, it’s not volatile once bound to ACHE. And frankly, I need more to go on than what Lavrov claims the lab told him, when it’s something subtle like the amount in some sample.

- Delayed onset of symptoms
- Non-lethality
As I said, the fact that the substance is a liquid doesn’t mean that one can’t pick up a small amount.

- Presence of BZ
If this is confirmed, or not denied, I’ll repeat that it by no means proves this was a false flag operation. Why would the British use BZ, then spike with A-234? Why not just use one or the other? And if they carefully planned this, why did the Skripals live? Surely it would have been better if they had died? Maybe the Skripals would know something that would incriminate the British.

- Lack of suspects, let alone a proposed method of synthesizing within the UK or a method of smuggling
Come on, it would be very easy to bring a very small amount of some highly toxic chemical substance into the country. It could easily be hidden.

- Lack of contamination
Lack of contamination with what? BZ or A-234? And where was there no contamination where it should have been and was tested for?

- Purpose or reason for admixture of AChE inhibitor and anti-cholinergic compounds
Ignorance? Again, why would the British government do it that way?

- Explanation of why Porton Down missed the BZ
Maybe they weren’t looking for it? This substance hasn’t been used very often, A never agent seems more likely.

Lack of BZ contamination at the crime scene
Again, did they test for it?

Where are the Skripals
Why is that relevant?

Let's face it, the facts fit BZ poisoning. Subjects found incapacitated hours after exposure with no lethality. First responders not affected. Trace amounts of BZ in blood samples weeks after exposure.
Some of the facts, yes. The presence of BZ, if confirmed, and the lag in symptoms with no lethality, though that is not compelling evidence. But the very long duration of symptoms is not consistent with BZ, unless of course you believe that the Skripals weren’t incapacitated for weeks, that that was a hoax, too. But then the Skripals had to be in on the hoax, as well as the staff at the hospital who treated them.

Now let's talk about the only ones who have outright lied about any of this...

Syria gas attack: It was both staged and did not occur. White helmets waited until a SAAF attack on Duma and did two things. They gathered bodies in an apartment building and pretended they were gas victims, which they filmed. Obviously not true because people can be seen wandering around the scene without protection. The second is that two Duma emergency doctors are on record that people burst into their ward yelling about a gas attack while doctors were responding to victims of the bombing attack, most of whom were suffering smoke and dust inhalation. The intruders responded by filming the chaos that ensued. Eff links. They're everywhere and I don't fool myself thinking anyone will look. White helmets are UK funded by the way.
Yes, people said they were victims of a gas attack. There have been interviews. You apparently don’t believe them?

And again, whether someone needs protection when in the vicinity of gas attack victims depends on the gas used, the amount, and how long after dispersal of the gas.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
aphronesis said:
Not to worry, but that wasn’t the question.
The UK made numerous and very obvious lies concerning the Skripal affair. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this. Not sure why you dragged the US into this. I know... Next question is what lies? Phew. I'll revisit the whole timeline with you if you want, but it's not my desire.

John Swanson
I didn’t drag the US into it. You said the West in an warlier post. That implies the UK and its major ally. Try to keep up with yourself. So no, you don’t know. You really have no idea whatsoever and are now getting subjective which is always disastrous for your points.

Similarly, who said I have a problem with the proposal that the UK might lie?

Timeline? Did I mention bookkeeping?

Not very good at this are you?
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
2
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Nah. You're more clever than that. A-234 is normally a liquid, which means any contact would be of lethal toxicity. That leaves the only possibility being an aerosolized method of application which would have contaminated a huge range of surfaces including all the Skripal's clothing.

The obvious implication is that even if the dose of A-234 was so small that it wasn't lethal, contamination would have been everywhere including on all of the first responders. But a singular policeman that was ancillary to the response was the only casualty. Why?
No, it doesn't mean any contact would be lethal. It could be applied to some object like a door, where much of it would evaporate, and only very small amounts would contact people. Or it could be diluted before applying.

If the dose was so small it wasn’t lethal, how do you know it wasn’t on all the first responders? Did they submit clothing samples for analysis? I just pointed out they wouldn’t necessarily show any effects.

Okay, so now the questions. Why was there a considerable amount of A-234 in the blood sample that was provided weeks after the event, but without the following logical consequences?
The passage you quote doesn’t say there was “a considerable amount”. It just says there was some. Depending on what kind of sample contained it, that might not be surprising. Again, it’s not volatile once bound to ACHE. And frankly, I need more to go on than what Lavrov claims the lab told him, when it’s something subtle like the amount in some sample.

- Delayed onset of symptoms
- Non-lethality
As I said, the fact that the substance is a liquid doesn’t mean that one can’t pick up a small amount.

- Presence of BZ
If this is confirmed, or not denied, I’ll repeat that it by no means proves this was a false flag operation. Why would the British use BZ, then spike with A-234? Why not just use one or the other? And if they carefully planned this, why did the Skripals live? Surely it would have been better if they had died? Maybe the Skripals would know something that would incriminate the British.

- Lack of suspects, let alone a proposed method of synthesizing within the UK or a method of smuggling
Come on, it would be very easy to bring a very small amount of some highly toxic chemical substance into the country. It could easily be hidden.

- Lack of contamination
Lack of contamination with what? BZ or A-234? And where was there no contamination where it should have been and was tested for?

- Purpose or reason for admixture of AChE inhibitor and anti-cholinergic compounds
Ignorance? Again, why would the British government do it that way?

- Explanation of why Porton Down missed the BZ
Maybe they weren’t looking for it? This substance hasn’t been used very often, A never agent seems more likely.

Lack of BZ contamination at the crime scene
Again, did they test for it?

Where are the Skripals
Why is that relevant?

Let's face it, the facts fit BZ poisoning. Subjects found incapacitated hours after exposure with no lethality. First responders not affected. Trace amounts of BZ in blood samples weeks after exposure.
Some of the facts, yes. The presence of BZ, if confirmed, and the lag in symptoms with no lethality, though that is not compelling evidence. But the very long duration of symptoms is not consistent with BZ, unless of course you believe that the Skripals weren’t incapacitated for weeks, that that was a hoax, too. But then the Skripals had to be in on the hoax, as well as the staff at the hospital who treated them.

Now let's talk about the only ones who have outright lied about any of this...

Syria gas attack: It was both staged and did not occur. White helmets waited until a SAAF attack on Duma and did two things. They gathered bodies in an apartment building and pretended they were gas victims, which they filmed. Obviously not true because people can be seen wandering around the scene without protection. The second is that two Duma emergency doctors are on record that people burst into their ward yelling about a gas attack while doctors were responding to victims of the bombing attack, most of whom were suffering smoke and dust inhalation. The intruders responded by filming the chaos that ensued. Eff links. They're everywhere and I don't fool myself thinking anyone will look. White helmets are UK funded by the way.
Yes, people said they were victims of a gas attack. There have been interviews. You apparently don’t believe them?

And again, whether someone needs protection when in the vicinity of gas attack victims depends on the gas used, the amount, and how long after dispersal of the gas.
Quote: "No, it doesn't mean any contact would be lethal. It could be applied to some object like a door, where much of it would evaporate, and only very small amounts would contact people. Or it could be diluted before applying. "

But why would you go to the trouble of using an amazingly lethal substance and apply it to a door knob where anyone could come into contact and betray its use? A-234 is also a volatile substance, so why would you apply it to a surface exposed to the sun, wind, and rain? And if applied in liquid form it would be sticky, meaning that anyone contacting it would be aware. Aerosolized and it wouldn't stick to the knob.

Diluted... You'd use an incredibly lethal substance and dilute it, or subject it to dilution? For what possible reason? If you only wanted to make someone sick and incapacitated, you'd use something like BZ

Quote: "The passage you quote doesn’t say there was “a considerable amount”. It just says there was some. "

"Lavrov said the Swiss laboratory also identified a high concentration of A-234 agent, known as Novichok. Such a concentration would have quickly resulted in Skripal’s death, Lavrov said. " - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-skripal-lavrov/russias-lavrov-says-skripals-may-have-been-poisoned-by-substance-russia-never-made-idUSKBN1HL17K

To non-lethality: "As I said, the fact that the substance is a liquid doesn’t mean that one can’t pick up a small amount. " - which is in direct opposition to the evidence as above.

Quote: "Lack of contamination with what? BZ or A-234? And where was there no contamination where it should have been and was tested for?"

Uh... Wouldn't this have been the basis and origin of any investigation?

John Swanson
 
Lavrov has said he has "indisputable proof" that the Syrian chemical attack was staged by the British.

But he won't tell us what that proof is...

And the Salisbury attack was staged by the British too (no evidence presented to suggest that it was)

Here's the thing, John, I've no doubt that the UK is capable of deceit, but I can't for the life of me see how staging 2 attacks would further UK interests.

The clincher is the Western missile attack on Syria. It is very clear that the message to the Russians is 'carry on as normal, but don't let Assad use chems. Russia or Iran's foothold in Syria are untouched.
 
Jun 30, 2014
7,060
0
0
Re:

macbindle said:
Lavrov has said he has "indisputable proof" that the Syrian chemical attack was staged by the British.

But he won't tell us what that proof is...

And the Salisbury attack was staged by the British too (no evidence presented to suggest that it was)

Here's the thing, John, I've no doubt that the UK is capable of deceit, but I can't for the life of me see how staging 2 attacks would further UK interests.

The clincher is the Western missile attack on Syria. It is very clear that the message to the Russians is 'carry on as normal, but don't let Assad use chems. Russia or Iran's foothold in Syria are untouched.
I don't know about iran's foothold, attacks like this or the ones by israel will probably make Assad more dependant of Russian support, so their influence on him will probably grow.
All the regional players, well besides the USA, would probably rather have a Syria regime than is under strong Russian influence instead of Iranian influence and even the Iran could live with that, as long as it's not a Saudi controlled Sunni regime their ok.
Israel would also be ok with that, they could have talks with Russia and a strong direct Russian influence could even mean indirect influence over the Hezbollah in Lebanon, so Israel could have indirect talks with Russia and Iran's position in Syria wouldn't be a dominant one, before the Russian intervention when they were the ones that send all the military advisors, since then those have been replaced by Russian ones.
 
Jeremy Corbyn is one of the few western politicians, at least those whose comments have gone public, that's making sense on both the Salisbury and Syria incidents.

Trump is an idiot but I don't consider him as dangerous as the people around him, namely John Bolton and Nikki Haley. Neocons and warmongers all over this administration.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Re: Re:

Mayomaniac said:
I don't know about iran's foothold, attacks like this or the ones by israel will probably make Assad more dependant of Russian support, so their influence on him will probably grow.
All the regional players, well besides the USA, would probably rather have a Syria regime than is under strong Russian influence instead of Iranian influence and even the Iran could live with that, as long as it's not a Saudi controlled Sunni regime their ok.
Israel would also be ok with that, they could have talks with Russia and a strong direct Russian influence could even mean indirect influence over the Hezbollah in Lebanon, so Israel could have indirect talks with Russia and Iran's position in Syria wouldn't be a dominant one, before the Russian intervention when they were the ones that send all the military advisors, since then those have been replaced by Russian ones.
good post, mayo.

of course, the us is not a regional player. which makes a question, why are they in syria and what's their strategy/tactic is (both long and short term) a complete puzzle to me. i can only assume things, but the iran and russia involvement imo are easier to entertain. if greatly simplified, the russians are the providers of weapons and the military expertise, while iran is mainly filling the overstretched assad army with human bodies both from within its own proper as well as the shiites from iraq, lebanon, afghanistan. both russia and iran NEED the survival of assad (for very different reasons) and both will continue to cooperate as long the assad survival is in danger. once assad is secured, the cooperation is bound to turn to harsh competition for influence....untill then, any regional player, turkey and israel in particular, regardless of their pprefernces CANT bet on russia in syria at the expense of iran...that said, as you pointed, the israelis would certaily prefer russia to iran. but they cant ignore that russia will NOT do the sraeli bidding at the expense of their own important relations with iran. not only vlad and bib talk frequently, but the 2 are mutually dependent and it will make the syrian balancing even less predictable...

but if one was to take a longer look at what exactly russia has achieved in syria, it is hard to ignore their military success while the political solution as ever is limbo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
S Non-Cycling Discussions 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY