Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So....you want Corbyn to demand May start circulating loads of image of people on their deathbeds who can't consent to having their image shared? Or you want them to devise computer mockups? Or something? To show that chemical warfare is bad? And that would be him 'playing a better game'? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the political masterstroke here. Not to mention that trying to make political capital out of tragedy is scumlike behaviour anyway.

I think Corbyn was right to call May on the donations the Tories have accepted from Russian oligarchs, but he was wrong to criticise the handling of the evidence of Russian involvement in the chemical weapon attack.

He's hopelessly naive to think a Russian agent would have left an implausibly undeniable calling card at the scene of the crime.

It makes him look at best a childish idealist and at worst a quasi-traitor..

This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.

A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please don't introduce US politics into the thread.

I'm as interested as you to discuss Trump, and gun control, and so on, but that whole area of topics is off limits because it just leads to terrible arguments.

What? We have german politics and UK politicsa but can't have american politics?

Yes.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please don't introduce US politics into the thread.

I'm as interested as you to discuss Trump, and gun control, and so on, but that whole area of topics is off limits because it just leads to terrible arguments.

What? We have german politics and UK politicsa but can't have american politics?

Not anymore, no.

I understand you're rather new to the site, but I'm sure a mod will be able to send you a message explaining why if you wanted to know. It's easier than taking this thread in that direction.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.

A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.

I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.

A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.

I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.

I couldn't disagree more.

The fact that he hasn't immediately leapt onto the populist "attack" on Russia, and has given a more considered approach, demostrates restraint and pragmatic statesmanship. It also leaves the country options, which May seems to decide we don't need every time she opens her mouth on any given subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43424867

If anything the Russians are more likely to respect Corbyn's approach as a man with whom they can talk. We have no big stick to shake, and it'll be ridiculously easy for the Russians to prove that and expose our empty posturing.

Corbyn has been described as being a campaigner not a politician. His style strikes a chord with people who are fed up with slick, spin doctored rhetoric.

He's got a big following with younger people, who have grown up since the Thatcher Revolution. Thes epeople don't remember the "winter of discontent", the miners' strikes and so on. They also see that the neo-liberal capitalist system has only enriched the already rich. After 10 years of austerity, the bottom 75% of the country are worse off.

That's all to explain Corbyn's electoral success and his hold on the party.

I think it was fine for Corbyn to attack the Tories over their oligarch money. I think it was wrong to suggest we need to wait for the result of the trial to see if Russia can be blamed. There won't ever be a trial because whoever did it was careful not tog et caught.

However, just because we can't have legally unshakeable proof, doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that someone thought it would be a good idea to squirt nerve agents around the centre of Salisbury. So we look at the balance of evidence, and make a decision based on likelihood.

There's no use going into all those factors because everyone knows them. The whole thing points at the Russian government as the culprit. If Corbyn believes that is incorrect, he should lay out his reasoning for why.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Corbyn has been described as being a campaigner not a politician. His style strikes a chord with people who are fed up with slick, spin doctored rhetoric.

He's got a big following with younger people, who have grown up since the Thatcher Revolution. Thes epeople don't remember the "winter of discontent", the miners' strikes and so on. They also see that the neo-liberal capitalist system has only enriched the already rich. After 10 years of austerity, the bottom 75% of the country are worse off.

That's all to explain Corbyn's electoral success and his hold on the party.

I think it was fine for Corbyn to attack the Tories over their oligarch money. I think it was wrong to suggest we need to wait for the result of the trial to see if Russia can be blamed. There won't ever be a trial because whoever did it was careful not tog et caught.

However, just because we can't have legally unshakeable proof, doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that someone thought it would be a good idea to squirt nerve agents around the centre of Salisbury. So we look at the balance of evidence, and make a decision based on likelihood.

There's no use going into all those factors because everyone knows them. The whole thing points at the Russian government as the culprit. If Corbyn believes that is incorrect, he should lay out his reasoning for why.

I imagine the "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq have made some in parliament it bit more wary about performing decisive action without knowing the full story. I know it has made me wary about jumping to conclusions.

Oh dear May could have made a poor choice surprise surprise.

The independent body setup to monitor chemical weapons have confirmed that since last Feb Russia has no stockpiles and no production facilities for chemical weapons.

The only other use of this agent was in 95 and the Mafia used it to knock off a banker after being sold it by a scientist.

The Double agent was helping the Spanish government against the Russian Mafia.

 r_squared wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.

A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.

I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.

I couldn't disagree more.

The fact that he hasn't immediately leapt onto the populist "attack" on Russia, and has given a more considered approach, demostrates restraint and pragmatic statesmanship. It also leaves the country options, which May seems to decide we don't need every time she opens her mouth on any given subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43424867

If anything the Russians are more likely to respect Corbyn's approach as a man with whom they can talk. We have no big stick to shake, and it'll be ridiculously easy for the Russians to prove that and expose our empty posturing.

Empty posturing? I would say, short of full scale war, we hold almost all the cards. All Russia has is gas exports, which would damage them as much as us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
Oh dear May could have made a poor choice surprise surprise.

The independent body setup to monitor chemical weapons have confirmed that since last Feb Russia has no stockpiles and no production facilities for chemical weapons.

The only other use of this agent was in 95 and the Mafia used it to knock off a banker after being sold it by a scientist.

The Double agent was helping the Spanish government against the Russian Mafia.

You mean this one:

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

The fact that Russia have destroyed the chemical weapons they hold, and ability to mass manufacture, on a large scale, tens of thousands of metric tones of the stuff, says nothing about their position of or ability to produce the amount used in the UK.

It is of course impossible that in the 17.1 square kilometres of the Russian Federation, a small canister of nerve agent could have been hidden from the international authorities.

I tried coming up with a suitably mocking, good-natured fun-poking at the statement of Russia being only 17.1 square kilometres big, but I didn't come up with anything.

I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!

Especially considering that such a weapon would likely be used in an illicit form, like say assassinations. What was the source for that nuclear material used in the tea assassination?

Clearly, regardless of what's been released, what's been shown to the other states who backed Britain was clear enough to warrant them unconditionally accusing Russia of this.

I assume that something like this is the answer Russia wanted, though as has been said, it proves nothing. Just another way for the Russians to deflect their accusations (perhaps deliberately so).

While this might be treasonous....


_IF_ I was Russia, and I had publically destroyed my stockpiles of illegal nerve agent.
BUT I had lied about it.
And I wanted to murder some really old ex-spy and his daughter for reasons as yet explained.
And they were in a first world country with reasonable resources, and not totally incompetent security forces.

I'd probably just have him shot. Or Strangled.

What exactly has Russia to gain by sloppily revealing it lied about it's chemical weapons program to indiscrimately murder one old man and a young woman sat on a bench? Killing people is easy. Using nerve gas is like... Expensive. Really expensive. Got to make it, got to transport it, got to have a safe means of exposing the target... Smothering someone is comparably free. Having them shot is almost free.

Nothing about this makes sense.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!

what a bizarre statement. The media narrative? You mean the media reporting the results of the police investigation and the government announcing the culprit? Unless one intends to accuse the government of lying,or demand the police hand deliver the dossier to their house before going along with the story (good luck with that), why wouldn't people believe things.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
While this might be treasonous....


_IF_ I was Russia, and I had publically destroyed my stockpiles of illegal nerve agent.
BUT I had lied about it.
And I wanted to murder some really old ex-spy and his daughter for reasons as yet explained.
And they were in a first world country with reasonable resources, and not totally incompetent security forces.

I'd probably just have him shot. Or Strangled.

What exactly has Russia to gain by sloppily revealing it lied about it's chemical weapons program to indiscrimately murder one old man and a young woman sat on a bench? Killing people is easy. Using nerve gas is like... Expensive. Really expensive. Got to make it, got to transport it, got to have a safe means of exposing the target... Smothering someone is comparably free. Having them shot is almost free.

Nothing about this makes sense.

It is because Russia (Putin, really) is pushing the limits. He wants an assassination that frightens his enemies and is implausibly deniable, and sends a message to the West that Russia is not going to knuckel under to the world order of international law.

The radioactive Polonium poisoning was the same thing.

In the 1980s, the Bulgarians assassinated someone in London with an umbrella that injected a tiny pellet of Ricin poison. It's James Bond stuff, but it is happening.

Think about anyone except a government organisation wanting to murder someone, and deciding to use nerve gas, or radiation poison or something odd like Ricin. Much easier to push them in front of a train (which has happened to two Russians in the UK in the last 10 years.)

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
While this might be treasonous....


_IF_ I was Russia, and I had publically destroyed my stockpiles of illegal nerve agent.
BUT I had lied about it.
And I wanted to murder some really old ex-spy and his daughter for reasons as yet explained.
And they were in a first world country with reasonable resources, and not totally incompetent security forces.

I'd probably just have him shot. Or Strangled.

What exactly has Russia to gain by sloppily revealing it lied about it's chemical weapons program to indiscrimately murder one old man and a young woman sat on a bench? Killing people is easy. Using nerve gas is like... Expensive. Really expensive. Got to make it, got to transport it, got to have a safe means of exposing the target... Smothering someone is comparably free. Having them shot is almost free.

Nothing about this makes sense.

Because the denial becomes plausible if someone is shot. Russian want people to know it was them. They want ex-spies and political dissidents to know they are not safe. They want to show western governments they can act with impunity. If someone was strangled or shot it could be the Russian government, or it could be someone else they crossed, mafia, a random nationalistic lunatic, or just a random act of violence. Using nerve agents or strange radioactive substances sends a clear message "It wasn't us. Wink wink. We would never do it. No. Wink wink. It just happens that people cross us they end up dead.".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I'm a bit amazed how quickly people swallowed the media narrative about this, to the degree that asking for evidence, investigations or following international law are now being considered unnecessary if not straight out treasonous!

I think you need to look in to what has happened. There was an investigation. It involved over 200 police and military personnel. The evidence was passed to the UK government and then on to our allies, all of whom have come to the same conclusion. The only way you could argue that the UK did not follow the letter of international law was not giving Russia 10 days to reply. This is the wording of the relevant convention:

A State Party shall have the right to request the Executive Council to obtain clarification from another State Party on any situation which may be considered ambiguous or which gives rise to a concern about its possible non-compliance with this Convention. In such a case, the following shall apply:
(a) The Executive Council shall forward the request for clarification to the State Party concerned through the Director-General not later than 24 hours after its
receipt;
(b) The requested State Party shall provide the clarification to the Executive Council as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the receipt of the request;

It is doubtful that this even applies, as the question from the UK government was not about the chemical weapons, but about the murder.

 Ketara wrote:
So....you want Corbyn to demand May start circulating loads of image of people on their deathbeds who can't consent to having their image shared? Or you want them to devise computer mockups? Or something? To show that chemical warfare is bad? And that would be him 'playing a better game'? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the political masterstroke here. Not to mention that trying to make political capital out of tragedy is scumlike behaviour anyway.

No not like that - I'm well aware of that you can't do something like that without consent . More images of the effects on organs and so forth to demonstrate the effects is has.

Part of your own statement shows why perhaps something can be achieved. We all know chemical weapons are bad, but they are worse than this, they are horrific. In a world with an attention span of about 7 seconds the images that truly remain powerful are the horrific ones, those that shock. And the question of political capital can just as easily be pointed at by both sides (where does one draw the line between political capital and asking why it shouldn't be done in a different way). However May has ejected a few intelligence officers which Russia likely expected anyway. No real issue to them. They will be laughing themselves silly over such an action. It's not about a few expulsions; it's about winning hearts and minds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This just thread just goes to show how whimsical public attitudes to politicians are.

A few weeks ago, Corbyn could do no wrong, the darling of the radical left. Now he appears to be persona non grata.

I don’t think people who have criticised Corbyn here were ever particularly pro him. I know I wasn’t. I thought he was better than May, but that was a low bar. He has now shown himself to be rather weak in the face of a clear threat. He is giving Russia exactly what they want. If he was PM this would just encourage them more. Either he is weak leader without the strength of character to work on the world stage or there is some truth in the talk of his loyalties bein elsewhere. Personally, based on the way he deals with the Tory’s I would say the former. He is a populist leader with no spine.

So what response would you have taken. Most investigations take weeks to conclude about who did what and when. It would be a huge embarrassment if after Boris the Clown comes out with "overwhelmingly likely" (whatever that means) that Putin was involved it turned out that it was annoyed radicals. Not only would Russia laugh at us, but would also undermine allies trust in us. It would be better to keep it low key, complete the investigation as thoroughly. Keep an open mind and state this (issue the horrific effects of the nerve gas and bodies). But make the perpetrators think they got away with it, let them relax a bit. Then when as much evidence as reasonably possible is gathered call a session at the UN on the use of chemical weapons present the evidence and report and...

Then eject the Russian Ambassador from the country.

Much more forceful and evidence based and open so everyone can see.

All May is doing is waving a tattered flag so she can appear more stalwart than Corbyn. The problem is that she won't win that way and is doing it for local political motives rather than what should be a public shaming of the Russian government's actions.

 Whirlwind wrote:
...

All May is doing is waving a tattered flag so she can appear more stalwart than Corbyn. The problem is that she won't win that way and is doing it for local political motives rather than what should be a public shaming of the Russian government's actions.

I agree. I think that they seem to have come to a conclusion for this investigation with startling rapidity. To be so absolutely sure that the Russian Govt has committed this attack, and we haven't even arrested anyone, or have even named or produced a suspect seems unusual at least.

There has been a great deal of assumptions made, and the fact that our allies have formed up behind us suggests only that it is politically expedient for them to do so. I'm not convinced that, after our history of wmd evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence.

However, I'm fairly certain that we will never actually know the real facts of this event. I just hope that May isn't foolish enough to escalate this.

Russia has much more stake in this country than 25% of our gas supplies, and the last thing we need at the moment is more instability and expense on the latest "threat".

Our shipyards are building many of these guys:


Soon, US can help defray the Russian Energy influence.

.. Remarkable few days really.

Quite something to see the Uk Govt. -- who couldn't put together the speech or the stage of their party leader at their own poxy party conference -- are, apparently, orgainsing bio=weapon chemical attacks inside our own country to... I dunno.... win some local elections.

or something.

..what else is happening :

David Davis asked why the government is refusing to put Brexit legislation through the commons, blames Labour for planning to vote against it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/parliamentary-democracy

meanwhile, watch this :

https://twitter.com/Open_Britain/status/974596360598106112

" On #BBCQT last night, Chris Grayling made the startling admission that the Gov just won't bother checking trucks coming into Dover post-Brexit. "


.. oh christ almighty, is he delusional or just entirely ignorant of of the basics of his job/the way trade works.


see :
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/974710480592887809

and these people are, allegedly, in charge.

It's like actual snuff politics.

As if alien body snatchers have taken over the Govt.

 Whirlwind wrote:

No not like that - I'm well aware of that you can't do something like that without consent . More images of the effects on organs and so forth to demonstrate the effects is has.

Part of your own statement shows why perhaps something can be achieved. We all know chemical weapons are bad, but they are worse than this, they are horrific. In a world with an attention span of about 7 seconds the images that truly remain powerful are the horrific ones, those that shock.

So...your political masterstroke for Corbyn is that he should demand that the equivalent of the images on the back of cigarette packages be mocked up by computer and circulated? Which is what they'd have to do, given the current sufferers cannot consent and there aren't exactly loads of dissected victims of this specific brand of chemical warfare lying around to be photographed.

I'm sorry, but I'm utterly baffled by this line of thinking. What would it achieve, politically or otherwise? People going, 'Oh no, chemical weapons are bad and nasty'? We've known that since the trenches of WW1. How would this prove Corbyn is 'on the ball' as it were? How exactly would this be, to use your words, 'playing a better game' than May? What's the modified endgoal, the adjustment of the current status quo in Labour's favour? What would it achieve that the images from loads of kids being hit by chemical weapons on Syria don't already?

And the question of political capital can just as easily be pointed at by both sides (where does one draw the line between political capital and asking why it shouldn't be done in a different way). However May has ejected a few intelligence officers which Russia likely expected anyway. No real issue to them. They will be laughing themselves silly over such an action. It's not about a few expulsions; it's about winning hearts and minds.

She named a number of other measures also. Depending on how she bothers to enforce them, they could actually lead to some significant financial harm to Putin's government. That one remains to be seen.

So what response would you have taken. Most investigations take weeks to conclude about who did what and when.

If a nuke went off tomorrow, American/British intelligence could tell you what country and what plant made it within a day. Some things have certain signatures which are impossible to falsify. I couldn't say whether or not this is one of them (I'm not a chemical warfare specialist), but it clearly emphasises that such things are possible. Apparently samples have already been forwarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for verification, and I've read one Dr Martin Boland (an Australian chemistry researcher) outlining the process which they'd likely have used to isolate and analyse the structure of the nerve agent involved.

If the government does in fact, know to a large degree of certainty who did it, there'd be no point in hanging around.

Then when as much evidence as reasonably possible is gathered call a session at the UN on the use of chemical weapons present the evidence and report and...

Then eject the Russian Ambassador from the country.

Much more forceful and evidence based and open so everyone can see.

Just to clarify. Your 'forceful' action is to say virtually nothing in the face of Russian hilarity and British public outrage, wait half a year for the full report of something they've more or less established the conclusions of in a few days, then waffle in the UN for an afternoon and expel a single Russian diplomat? That's the approach you think wouldn't leave the Russians 'laughing themselves silly'?

 whembly wrote:
Our shipyards are building many of these guys:

Some people see an energy solution, I see a WMD. A multi megaton weapon without the harmful side effects of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons. Load a shitton of LNG on board, crew her with some Chechnyan 'patriots' and.... wait, what were we talking about again?

A gas explosion would be nasty, but it's not the same as a nuclear weapon. The LNG has to burn off in combination with oxygen. This limits the rate at which the "explosion" can proceed.

So hot air from America then...?

Just taking some news from the neighbour: how is UK doing those days ? And the Brexit ? It has been years since you asked for it !

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Our shipyards are building many of these guys:

Some people see an energy solution, I see a WMD. A multi megaton weapon without the harmful side effects of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons. Load a shitton of LNG on board, crew her with some Chechnyan 'patriots' and.... wait, what were we talking about again?

More likely it would be a target for terrorists than weaponised as some massive floating bomb.