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.

 Ketara wrote:


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?

I wouldn't say it's a political masterstroke... just better than what May is doing....

It's more about playing the psychology game. We all know it's bad to be affected by chemical weapons. But a lot of what we see is sanitised. As a populace we tend to ignore things we don't like as it allows us to easier brush it under the table. The strategy is prevent that from happening to have full frontal coverage of its influence so that people are horrified about it not just say over "well, dear it is truly horrible what has happened now where's the tea and cakes" [insert stupid british posh voice]. You get much more of an effect when you get a psychological reaction.

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.

Yes we can all name measures, actions are much more important. She could for example say she is going to take a great steaming dump over Russia somewhere. Also Putin is one of the richest people on earth, a few financial sanctions isn't going to effect him in the slightest and he simply doesn't care what happens to the rest of the populace.

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.

But unlike a ballistic missile you can't track the trajectory exactly to where that nerve agent came from. When it was manufactured and who actually applied it. They can pinpoint where it was manufactured, but as with any crime there is also a motive and a perpetrator. A lot of this material was manufactured during the late cold war era. We have no idea who managed to get access to it after the fall of the USSR. Don't get me wrong I do think it is in all likelihood a state sanctioned act, but just knowing where something came from is not an immediate implication of guilt.

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'?

Throwing out the Ambassador is much stronger statement. They are there to be the direct representative of one country to another. Throwing out a random subset of administrators/intelligence officers is nothing if they can just get replaced the following week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
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 !

In summary. Really, really, really badly...

Herbington wrote:
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.

Also guilty until PROVEN otherwise is cornerstone of western countries. Or at least so west likes to claim. Is UK willing to drop that idea and go toward North Korean style?

Well then again...We ARE talking about UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

It is of course impossible that independent party didn't do something again that independent parties have been shown to do before right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

Well we have had goverment ACCUSE Russia. Have they actually shown any evidence about it?

US accused Iraq of non-existant WMD. UK joined suit.

Easy to accuse but where's the god damn proof? Whenever you have US&UK(known liers) accusing those would be good to have first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
[
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.

Of course production source isn't proof of actually who did it. Or did you forget case of where this gas was actually used by independent party? The case referred just few posts above. Obviously any such case is flat out impossible here so you can within day instantly put blame on Russia with no margin of error whatsoever!

Truly is UK guilty searching methods have improved a lot in couple decades! From attacking illegally into Irak claiming non-existant WMD's into pin pointing guilty perpetrators of gas attack within day without even catching the ones who actually released it! AMAZING! Has UK created psi-corps from Babylon 5 in meanwhile or where these magic powers have come from?

 godardc wrote:
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 !

The previous hundred pages of this thread are still there if you care to read them.



Anyway, apparently we're looking at moving various Russian exiles to a 'low' threat status. Buzzfeed is also trying their hand at journalism again with regards to the topic. An extended series here:-

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.ko5Ej1n3n#.paK7B2lNl

If there is indeed, a Russian hit squad roaming the UK, that would be some cause for mild concern. Nothing to ensure that they only stick to ex-Russians after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Well we have had goverment ACCUSE Russia. Have they actually shown any evidence about it?

To our allies and one international organisation, apparently. Given they haven't hand delivered the dossier to your door personally though, you may wish to write them a letter requesting that the Home Office add you to its VIP mailing list.

US accused Iraq of non-existant WMD. UK joined suit.

Easy to accuse but where's the god damn proof? Whenever you have US&UK(known liers) accusing those would be good to have first.

Most people are aware that the people at the top, their motives, levels of tolerance, and opportunities for such things rotate quite frequently due to elections. Sometimes governments cover things up, sometimes they don't. Whilst you have the odd outlier (see Blair), few of Her Majesty's Ministers usually have the chutzpah to come in and point blank lie/exaggerate to the House of Commons about such things. It does happen, but when there's the potential for this much egg on their faces and so little gain if they are wrong, it would be exceedingly irrational and strange behaviour.

Tl;dr, shouting 'Why do you believe the government without proof, sheeple?' is just as bad as blindly trusting anything the government says. We have sufficient information that it is reasonable to believe Russia would have been the most likely culprit with regards to motive, sufficient information to indicate that it would exceptionally hard for anybody else to have pulled it off (even the guy who betrayed Novichok said he couldn't recreate it in a lab right now), and very little reason for our Government to be lying (there are much easier ways to distract from a domestic issue).

I am consequently willing, applying basic logic and analysis, to go along with what the Government is saying as the most accurate and likely course of events right now. Especially given that they have access to a wealth more data than me, and little motivation to be lying about it. Applying Occam's Razor, it is vastly more likely to have been Russia (who do this sort of thing not infrequently, see Litvinenko) sending a message than any other party/motive.

Of course production source isn't proof of actually who did it. Or did you forget case of where this gas was actually used by independent party? The case referred just few posts above. Obviously any such case is flat out impossible here so you can within day instantly put blame on Russia with no margin of error whatsoever!

The interesting thing about Novichok is that like many such chemical weapons, it actually has a relatively short lifespan before it degrades. In other words, it couldn't have been stored in an ex-employee's garage (as was claimed in the 1995 case) ever since the program closed before escaping into a wider circulation of illegal weaponry. It would have to have been produced more recently. There was also substantial doubt over whether or not the state was involved in that 1995 case as well. Given the extreme complexity of the formula and faciltiies required for production; it is extremely unlikely to have been made by a non-state actor. And if it was, you'd then have to come up with a plausible motive for it to have been used in this instance. So attempting to speculate in such a direction from no proof would really only be of interest to conspiracy theorists, people convinced of their own cleverness, and Russian shills.

Truly is UK guilty searching methods have improved a lot in couple decades! From attacking illegally into Irak claiming non-existant WMD's into pin pointing guilty perpetrators of gas attack within day without even catching the ones who actually released it! AMAZING! Has UK created psi-corps from Babylon 5 in meanwhile or where these magic powers have come from?

You're aware nobody here is impressed by this sort of dialogue, right? I mean, if you're enjoying it, do carry on. I'd just hate for you to be wasting your doubtless rapier wit on those of us too ill-cultured to appreciate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

But unlike a ballistic missile you can't track the trajectory exactly to where that nerve agent came from. When it was manufactured and who actually applied it. They can pinpoint where it was manufactured, but as with any crime there is also a motive and a perpetrator. A lot of this material was manufactured during the late cold war era. We have no idea who managed to get access to it after the fall of the USSR. Don't get me wrong I do think it is in all likelihood a state sanctioned act, but just knowing where something came from is not an immediate implication of guilt.

It actually is in this case, to an extent. Most nerve agents have limited shelf lifes. The two variants of Novichok have a more extended 'basic' one due to the fact that they are stored as separate chemical compounds before being combined to produce the finished chemical. But that in turn means that they have to have been mixed quite recently, and combining all these steps effectively, which as Vil Mirzayanov put it, requires a state actor.

The Russian Scientist who helped Develop It wrote:“You need a very high-qualified professional scientist,” he continued. “Because it is dangerous stuff. Extremely dangerous. You can kill yourself. First of all you have to have a very good shield, a very particular container. And after that to weaponize it – weaponize it is impossible without high technical equipment. It’s impossible to imagine.”

“The final product, in storage, after one year is already losing 2%, 3%. The next year more, and the next year more. In 10-15 years, it’s no longer effective.”

In other words, it's impossible for it to be a leftover sample knocking around which simply fell into the wrong hands. You need at least three different skill sets, to make the base compounds, then transport/store it, and then safely combine and utilise it. No criminal or non-state actor would know where to start synthesizing the base chemicals. No non-state actor would have the technical equipment to recombine the original compounds. And even if they did, they wouldn't be able to utilise it practically.

This simply cannot have been done by someone who doesn't have access to a specialised chemical warfare laboratory and engineers. So Russia's allusions to old weapons stockpiles lying around is utter misdirection. Which given they have the same knowledge as I've just sketched out above, is very strange behaviour if they didn't do it.

I don't expect anyone will ever see such a "dossier" providing conclusive proof as to how this nerve agent came to be deployed here, however I reserve the right to apply a healthy dollop of scepticism before I accept Theresa May's accusations right off the bat, particularly considering the extremely short periods of time since the start of the investigation. I'm interested in which other state or actor might have an interest in ruffling feathers between the West and Russia. Who else has the resources and capability? Who has the most to gain from this?

Besides, anyone who has just accepted that it was the Ruskies must be careful to examine their sources before making a judgement. As a rule of thumb, if Boris Johnson, the Daily Mail and the Sun are absolutely certain of something, then its almost certainly rubbish.

I'm not sure who has attacked us, and why they would do so, and i'm struggling to see who has the most to gain. But, sadly, Theresa May is so hopelessly buried under a steaming pile of Brexit that this is a welcome distraction and an opportunity to show how strong she could be, whilst the BBC and the right wing press demonise Corbyns more measured response. Perhaps it was her?

 r_squared wrote:
I don't expect anyone will ever see such a "dossier" providing conclusive proof as to how this nerve agent came to be deployed here, however I reserve the right to apply a healthy dollop of scepticism before I accept Theresa May's accusations right off the bat, particularly considering the extremely short periods of time since the start of the investigation. I'm interested in which other state or actor might have an interest in ruffling feathers between the West and Russia. Who else has the resources and capability? Who has the most to gain from this?

This is probably the most realistic alternative candidate. Which says something.

Jeremy Corbyns responses only look measured because the bar is literally touching the ground.

 Ketara wrote:
It actually is in this case, to an extent. Most nerve agents have limited shelf lifes. The two variants of Novichok have a more extended 'basic' one due to the fact that they are stored as separate chemical compounds before being combined to produce the finished chemical. But that in turn means that they have to have been mixed quite recently, and combining all these steps effectively, which as Vil Mirzayanov put it, requires a state actor.

But it still is an assertion that it can *only* be a state actor. There are plenty of people trained to be able to create one or more components given the correct equipment. Because it requires specialist knowledge and the chemical composition does not mean it cannot be undertaken by another group. That could even be in a Russian lab "Here's a million dollars; we have your kids/family". There's plenty of ways that someone could get the sample. That doesn't make it a state action. Unlike a ballistic missile which is launched and follows basic physical laws which allows you to track back to the initial launch site. You can't do that with chemicals that can be hidden from general view. The evidence and claims are too circumstantial at the moment and that always then runs the risk that it is viewed as misleading if in the future it is definitively proven otherwise (e.g. WMD in Iraq). Again I do think that the Russian government is involved but that the evidence should be more robust before throwing accusations about. But once you have all that evidence in hand, take action then and do it harshly. Or we could just throw a few nukes about and end it all anyway...

 Whirlwind wrote:

But it still is an assertion that it can *only* be a state actor. There are plenty of people trained to be able to create one or more components given the correct equipment. Because it requires specialist knowledge and the chemical composition does not mean it cannot be undertaken by another group. That could even be in a Russian lab "Here's a million dollars; we have your kids/family". There's plenty of ways that someone could get the sample. That doesn't make it a state action.

You've missed the point. It's not just getting the 'sample'. This isn't a James Bond film, where some one eyed gangster holds a gun to a screaming child whilst demanding the scientist father grabs a vial of glowing liquid from his lab at work. There is no 'sample' in that way.

What there is, is a number of basic chemical compounds, the exact chemical ratios of which are closely guarded state secrets. Then there is the specialist gear and and even more secret procedure which are required in order to synthesize these compounds into an ultimately unstable short lived (relatively speaking) nerve agent. And then there is the manufacture and supply of the heavily engineered containment system which stabilises and prevents the newly created compound from deteriorating immediately, whilst permitting deployment. All of these different areas of production are compartmentalised, so as to not spread knowledge of the full process (we know that from the whistleblower).

In other words, the very nature of this particular chemical beast dictates that it has to have been made recently ( as opposed to being a leftover from the original stockpile), and that a huge amount of extremely specialist knowledge and skills across multiple people/teams utilised in its employment. Whilst that does not guarantee it is not a state actor beyond all possibility, it being the Yakuza or something is about as likely as ISIS suddenly firing a hydrogen bomb. You just don't find that kind of assortment of skills, funding, and equipment allied together outside of the state.

Plus, I mean, seriously, do you think some multi-billionaire person or corporation is going to waste that kind of money and resources topping a retiree having dinner with his daughter? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. It's a state, and knowledge of this kind of nerve agent was always restricted to one state in particular. We're talking about it. It's not like it's VX or Sarin, or something. I suppose China or America could have wasted hundreds of millions recreating the process, but I really don't see Trump or Jinping doing all that to knock off some old coot and get a few diplomats expelled.

Unlike a ballistic missile which is launched and follows basic physical laws which allows you to track back to the initial launch site. You can't do that with chemicals that can be hidden from general view.

Not what I was referring to. I believe that there is a form of nuclear signature which actually allows you to attribute what type of nuclear material was used, where it originated from, and how/where it was processed. It's not a case of watching the missile. Something to do with radiation, I don't know the details.

But once you have all that evidence in hand, take action then and do it harshly. Or we could just throw a few nukes about and end it all anyway...

No offence, but your idea of harsh action is telling the Russian ambassador to go home and making a speech at the UN. I daresay that Russia would pay even less attention to that than we do to Spain over Gibraltar. You claim that the evidence is 'circumstantial', but you have absolutely no information beyond what the state has chosen to release at this preliminary stage. I daresay the people over at Scotland Yard have far more detail and evidence than we do; and working on the balance of probabilities, if they say it was Russia at this stage? I'm inclined to believe them. Too little in the way of motivation to lie that doesn't stray into crackpot territory.

 Ketara wrote:

Not what I was referring to. I believe that there is a form of nuclear signature which actually allows you to attribute what type of nuclear material was used, where it originated from, and how/where it was processed. It's not a case of watching the missile. Something to do with radiation, I don't know the details.

You could analyse the isotopes of the resultant fallout or of the nuclear fuel of the device. Different sources of Uranium or Plutonium will have different ratios of isotopes, along with ratios of impurities.

 Ketara wrote:
...
No offence, but your idea of harsh action is telling the Russian ambassador to go home and making a speech at the UN. I daresay that Russia would pay even less attention to that than we do to Spain over Gibraltar. You claim that the evidence is 'circumstantial', but you have absolutely no information beyond what the state has chosen to release at this preliminary stage. I daresay the people over at Scotland Yard have far more detail and evidence than we do; and working on the balance of probabilities, if they say it was Russia at this stage? I'm inclined to believe them. Too little in the way of motivation to lie that doesn't stray into crackpot territory.

However, with that said, what "harsh" action do you recommend? How should the UK respond to this, as you seem to be claiming this is a deliberate attack on our sovereign territory? Surely releasing a chemical weapon against a British citizen, in Britain by another nation state, constitutes an act of war?

If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?

Considering some commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Spectator, think that Corbyn and not May has the right attitude to Russia, perhaps it is your "crackpot" acceptance of the Govt agenda that should be questioned?

tneva82 wrote:

Herbington wrote:
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.

Also guilty until PROVEN otherwise is cornerstone of western countries. Or at least so west likes to claim. Is UK willing to drop that idea and go toward North Korean style?

It's obvious that that principle can only work if you are dealing with people who uphold the rule of law. Putin's Russia' doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
...

If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?

...

No, there is a distinction in international law between an act of war and whatever the UK government has characterised this event as. (I can't remember but you can look it up.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...

 r_squared wrote:
...

If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?

...

No, there is a distinction in international law between an act of war and whatever the UK government has characterised this event as. (I can't remember but you can look it up.)

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war...

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/act-of-war/

an aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes an immediate threat to peace

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/act+of+war

an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/act-of-war

Well, that would seem like the deploying of munitions to kill a foreign national in their country of citizenship counts as an action likely to provoke a war.

Also Theresa May herself said...

the government would "conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom"

However, I am in no way advocating that this is an act of war, I was questioning Ketara about what he thought what was an appropriate response, seeing as he is determined to poo poo anything other than the Govt line of accusation. He said that those of us unwilling to jump to the same conclusions as him and advocating a more considered approach are somehow displaying weakness.

So Ketara, what is your considered approach to this political incident? Are you willing to escalate? And in what way should we do so?

Russia is clearly ready and willing to fight a dirty war with us. They're daring us to escalate.

I rather doubt that we're willing to fight that war.

r_squared wrote:
However, with that said, what "harsh" action do you recommend? How should the UK respond to this, as you seem to be claiming this is a deliberate attack on our sovereign territory?

I actually addressed this in the other thread, if you go and look. Ending up in the awkward situation of multi-threading a subject here, might be best to start confining to one. My fun idea was to start playing in the Ukraine. We could even have fun with cyber-attacks and suchlike heading back in their direction. As Putin is so wonderfully demonstrating, there are many ways of subverting and undermining which don't involve actual declarations of war.

If Theresa May truly had irrefutable evidence that this was Putin, why on earth is she not invoking article 5? After all, NATO invoked article 5 after 911, and there was no other nation state involved.
You are asserting that this is definitely the Russians, and they have deployed a chemical weapon in the United Kingdom. Surely that is an act of war?

An act of war is whatever a state decides it is. It can go from years of border incursions down to spitting over it and claiming the other side spat first. Probably not best to start open warfare until it happens another two times. After that, we'd be more or less obligated to.

Considering some commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Spectator, think that Corbyn and not May has the right attitude to Russia, perhaps it is your "crackpot" acceptance of the Govt agenda that should be questioned?

Not quite. I'm afraid you misread. I said that trying to assume (or even realistically leave open the possibility) that the government is actively lying /and/ ascribe responsibility to non-state actors/the American or Chinese governments (the only real alternatives) would be crackpot. Because it is. I've outlined precisely why using the chemical/manufacturing facets involved. It's nothing to do with 'agendas' or how the various parties have reacted, I'm talking about the assignation of responsibility for the attack. Which is backed up in this case with a healthy dollop of science.

I would have put together the exact same opinion given the same facts without the government declaring responsibility; the fact they have done so to this extent (with far more information and expertise available than any of us) only further solidifies it. It simply isn't technically feasible for any non-state actor to have pulled it off, and it would be utter political lunacy on the part of any other potential state actor but the Russians.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Estimates using a 5 tank LNG carrier used as a FAE have an estimated 550 yard blast radius with flash burns and structural damage in excess of a mile in every direction. That's actually pretty comparable to a nuke in the 20kt range. Trick is you have to elevate the temp of the LNG to close to it's boiling point and then open the valves, dumping it for about ten min of so before sparking it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Estimates using a 5 tank LNG carrier used as a FAE have an estimated 550 yard blast radius with flash burns and structural damage in excess of a mile in every direction. That's actually pretty comparable to a nuke in the 20kt range. Trick is you have to elevate the temp of the LNG to close to it's boiling point and then open the valves, dumping it for about ten min of so before sparking it.

What is the Job Title for this and where can I apply?

I think Ketara has the right of it guys, let's stick any further Russian poisoning related stuff in that thread. If may and Putin have a meeting unrelated then here works. But to avoid people getting confused about where the information is let's keep the rest there

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/defence/news/93692/jeremy-corbyn-not-given-full-access-top-secret-information-salisbury

The Times has reported that Theresa May has refused to include Corbyn in the top level briefing over the nerve agent attack. To give context, David Cameron previously briefed Ed Milliband in order to gain his support for action against Syria.
Now, considering May has a minority govt it would seem prudent to ensure that the leader of the opposition was onside should it be necessary to carry out any action that requires support in parliament.
There are only 2 reasons why she wouldn't;

1. She is playing politics. Deliberately denying Corbyn the information he needs to make a decision to support or oppose the Govt in order to make herself look strong and him look weak.
2. The Govts evidence is not as conclusive as they are purporting. It will not stand scrutiny from someone more balanced and will provoke questions over the stability and rationality of their decision.

She does not have to share this information with the leader of the opposition, but in this scenario her refusal to do so tells you one of two things. You decide what she means, depending on your viewpoint.

There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements.

Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like.

Personally I think this is a mistake as Putin's idea is to weaken the West by spreading discord and suspicion. It's a technique that works well against an open society with freedom of speech and so on, so we have to be extra-careful when dealing with this kind of thing.

.

What would be the harm in, for example, sharing information with the shadow defence minister.

Or, for example, Keir Starmer. I saw him on Newsnight the other day and, despite being Labour, he seemed like a good person for the Government to get on side, both politically and knowledge wise.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements.

Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like...

Without checking the exact chronology of events, it is Corbyn's job to act as opposition to the Govt. I have also never heard of that unwritten rule myself, I would still expect the opposition to continue to do its job if it disagreed with the Govts direction. Corbyn's views on our foreign policy are well known, and his response should have been expected by any competent PM. A real coup for May could have been achieved if she had been able to show Corbyn evidence to support her assessment and actions, and he agreed with and supported her.

She has failed to do that, and I don't believe she is "dishing out a consequence" like some school marm disciplining an errant child. I feel she has acted as she has because she doesn't have a compelling argument, and she dare not show it to Corbyn because he will be vociferous in his attacks on her.

If this turns out to be another case of "WMD's", she may come to regret her actions, and Corbyn will be vindicated on foreign policy, once again.

As Owen Jones made very clear in an interview with the BBC recently, it is the same people in Govt who keep making the same mistakes which result in destabilisation and needless death who are lauded as hard nosed, clear thinking leaders, rather than the populist, followers of the path of least resistance. People like Corbyn who consistently opposed all our major foreign interventions have been proven to be on the right side of history every single time, and are still continually derided as traitors and snowflakes.

It's fething bizarre.

Rubbish, Corbyn flip-flops from one position to another looking at what he thinks is popularity so randomly why the hell would you include him in something serious?

Just look at Europe, he’s against, he’s weakly Pro Campaign, now he’s out again.

Defends: he’s anti-trident but would keep the subs (jobs)?

He has no place at the top table.

Edited by motyak, moved to correct thread

Wanted to avoid the red text but remember, poisoning debate in the poisoning thread. Thanks guys

In more personal news. .

I am now one of the minority of people aged 26 and under who own their own house.


It's been a right pain in the ass. And it's only been helped by my lower middle class parents who allowed me and my missus to stay at theirs rent free for the past 2 years whilst we saved up.


It's a shame that owning your own home is such a rarity these days.

Don’t know many people that don’t own.

Location and age dependent I’m sure.

Well done though, just prepare for all the costs that go with it!

 notprop wrote:
Don’t know many people that don’t own.

Location and age dependent I’m sure.

Well done though, just prepare for all the costs that go with it!

Home owning is at like a 30 year low. Plenty of people my age around here don't own their own house. Many of them are too young to use rent to buy, and a lot of new builds are surprisingly expensive.


That is when they aren't being bought by landlords.

 notprop wrote:
Rubbish, Corbyn flip-flops from one position to another looking at what he thinks is popularity so randomly why the hell would you include him in something serious?

Just look at Europe, he’s against, he’s weakly Pro Campaign, now he’s out again.

Defends: he’s anti-trident but would keep the subs (jobs)?

He has no place at the top table.

You really are reaching there especially considering the flip flops of the likes of May and Boris.
Why don't you top it off with some accusations of IRA sympathies or some other vague bs about Czech spies?

Besides, if May wants to shoot herself in the foot again, then I'm more than happy. I've just enjoyed watching Boris squirm in the spotlight of Andrew Marr's questions involving corruption, £160K tennis matches with Putin minister's wives and the conservative party's connections to Russian oligarchs.

The Tories are a shower of squirming gak and are as trustworthy and consistent as a tomcat on meth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
Don’t know many people that don’t own.
...

I own, and I know plenty of people who don't, and can't afford to either. This anecdotal evidence argument thing is great isn't it?

(EDIT: Just saw the red text about siphoning off Salisbury discussion to the other thread. Since this is a more general point about Foreign Policy, is it cool to leave it here or should I move it?)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an unwritten rule that the government and opposition follow the same line in foreign policy, whatever their domestic disagreements.

Corbyn broke that rule. May is dishing out a consequence. Politics, if you like.

Feth that rule. Corbyn is right to not respect it. Thats how we got the Iraq War.

I just looked up one of the votes relating to the Iraq War. If the Conservative party had taken a party stance against the Iraq War and enough of their MP's voted against the motion ("That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"), the Iraq War might have been prevented.

There were more Labour MP's who voted against the Iraq War (84) and their own Party's Government, than Conservatives (2).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq