Airliners.net

Dutchy wrote:

What would be enough proof for you?

Something that makes sense and isn't ambiguous. Everything so far has been very weak and embarrassingly poor. I have no idea how it happened so can't begin to imagine what the proof may eventually be if it was the Russians.

Somebody suggested, that the poisoning of Skrypal was not a message to potential traitors at home, but to the likes of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. To warn them, that if they don't keep their mouth shut about Trump and Russians, there is no place in the world where they can hide from Putin's wrath.

Dogman wrote:

Somebody suggested, that the poisoning of Skrypal was not a message to potential traitors at home, but to the likes of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. To warn them, that if they don't keep their mouth shut about Trump and Russians, there is no place in the world where they can hide from Putin's wrath.

This is conspiracy theory for sure. As I mentioned before, the whole West sees Putin now as an almighty god of some sort. Perhaps start bringing human sacrifices to him in hope he won't keep wishing to punish anyone, be it a spy (as it was said in the USSR, "there is nothing called a former spy") or some politician?

Dutchy wrote:

What would be enough proof for you?

To me - a story that has both of its ends. Where the investigation showed they completed their work, gathered proof of their story, presented it to public, from the beginning to the very end. And not things like "highly possible", "no other conclusion" and the likes. No "black hole" stories either.

Dutchy wrote:

The UK isn't an autocratic regime you know, much more free society, but then again Moscow did have some bombings around the time Putin needed to be elected the first time, oh sorry, those were committed by the FSB of course, they don't count. The Brittish authorities now believe he was poisoned in his own home, as many as 130 people could have been exposed to this poison.

Do you get the difference between a state with a free society and a failed state even? State with a free society is nonetheless able to perform its main duties - protect its citizens, its borders, a justice system is working. While in case of a failed one - there are no capabilities to protect the borders, and there are no capabilities to enforce the internal laws either. Hence, in the latter case citizens do whatever they feel like without consequences, and such a state may appear as a state with extremely high degrees of freedom. But they are very different nonetheless. So which of these two is the UK now?

About 250 counter-terrorism detectives continue to work around the clock on the investigation, supported by a full range of experts and partners. Officers continue to trawl through more than 5,000 hours of CCTV and examine more than 1,350 exhibits that have been seized. Approximately and hundreds of statements taken.

Ok - now let's wait for the result of all this "trawling" and see.

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy. Remember when Russia actually tried warning us about the Boston bombers and we blew off their warnings? Russia has so little credibility that we won't believe them even when they are trying to do us a favor.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The UK isn't an autocratic regime you know, much more free society, but then again Moscow did have some bombings around the time Putin needed to be elected the first time, oh sorry, those were committed by the FSB of course, they don't count. The Brittish authorities now believe he was poisoned in his own home, as many as 130 people could have been exposed to this poison.

Do you get the difference between a state with a free society and a failed state even? State with a free society is nonetheless able to perform its main duties - protect its citizens, its borders, a justice system is working. While in case of a failed one - there are no capabilities to protect the borders, and there are no capabilities to enforce the internal laws either. Hence, in the latter case citizens do whatever they feel like without consequences, and such a state may appear as a state with extremely high degrees of freedom. But they are very different nonetheless. So which of these two is the UK now?

So do you want to label the UK as a failed state instead of a free democratic society?

Dutchy wrote:

So do you want to label the UK as a failed state instead of a free democratic society?

That will depend on UK’s behavior. As of now I am not yet saying that they are a failed state, but requests made by highest level politicians to explain what something or someone is doing within their borders - certainly are a step in this direction.

Jouhou wrote:

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy. Remember when Russia actually tried warning us about the Boston bombers and we blew off their warnings? Russia has so little credibility that we won't believe them even when they are trying to do us a favor.

This makes absolutely no sense.

So if they are innocent, bad luck, because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty, I don't even need to provide proof.

You could put every country in the world in this basket

Jouhou wrote:

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy. Remember when Russia actually tried warning us about the Boston bombers and we blew off their warnings? Russia has so little credibility that we won't believe them even when they are trying to do us a favor.

What are they lying about beforehand? And - why should they have to acknowledge and admit something they have nothing to do with?

Speaking of Boston bombings - well, it’s your FBI that didn’t handle this information properly; don’t make it Russians’ fault.

And the most important - don’t generalize terms like “dishonest” over the whole nation. In every country, in every nation, in the heart of every government or regime there are honest people that want to be trusted and be able to trust. That is true about USA, Russia, North Korea. Even though they represent and work for the interests of their country and not yours. These are the ones that you should identity, establish and value relationships with. But instead you just sanction people in bulk and cut communication channels.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So do you want to label the UK as a failed state instead of a free democratic society?

That will depend on UK’s behavior. As of now I am not yet saying that they are a failed state, but requests made by highest level politicians to explain what something or someone is doing within their borders - certainly are a step in this direction.

What absolute horse manure!
There are no countries on this planet with the degree of "security" you are supposedly seeking.
Every country is susceptible to an individual crossing their border illegally, either by slipping under the radar (quite literally) in the dead of night, or entering through normal channels using false documentation. That is every country.

On top of that, any country that engages with the rest of the world in any meaningful way, will also need a vast and expensive secret police force in order to follow every legitimate visitor, in case one of them has a secret agenda, such as pouring arsenic into a local water supply. You either need closed borders and very few foreign visitors (e.g Albania under Hoxha) or an economy totally bankrupted from funding numbers of secret police (e.g. Stasi in East Germany)

By your definition, every other country aside from these two is a "failed state".

Tell me that it would be impossible for the US to place an agent into Russia, and poison a low-level target not worthy of round-the-clock surveillance and protection? And get clean away afterwards without anybody knowing who was responsible? Looks like Russia would be a failed state too, if it was ever put to the test.

Or have I misunderstood you?

Freakysh wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy. Remember when Russia actually tried warning us about the Boston bombers and we blew off their warnings? Russia has so little credibility that we won't believe them even when they are trying to do us a favor.

This makes absolutely no sense.

So if they are innocent, bad luck, because I don't like some of the things they've done before, because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty
You could put every country in the world in this basket

Yes, actually it makes absolute sense, so why would you possibly think differently?

So, if they are innocent....

and if the moon was made of cheese, I'll have a slice of Roquefort.

....because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty

That entire sentence is a complete fail. Speak in English please.

because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty, I don't even need to provide proof

You've got it back to front; they have provided the proof, on numerous occasions. Russia is guilty.

You could put every country in the world in this basket

Why would you claim that? Examples and proof please.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy. Remember when Russia actually tried warning us about the Boston bombers and we blew off their warnings? Russia has so little credibility that we won't believe them even when they are trying to do us a favor.

This makes absolutely no sense.

So if they are innocent, bad luck, because I don't like some of the things they've done before, because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty
You could put every country in the world in this basket

Yes, actually it makes absolute sense, so why would you possibly think differently?

So, if they are innocent....

and if the moon was made of cheese, I'll have a slice of Roquefort.

....because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty

That entire sentence is a complete fail. Speak in English please.

because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty, I don't even need to provide proof

You've got it back to front; they have provided the proof, on numerous occasions. Russia is guilty.

You could put every country in the world in this basket

Why would you claim that? Examples and proof please.

1. Because it doesn't

2. Ok. Would you like fries with that?

3. No it's fine, you've left out half the sentence, you do know how commas work, don't you?

4. They've provided none

5. Here's one. US false claims of WMD in Iraq. By this reasoning, you never need proof to claim any American misdoings, because hey, they've lied before.

Now, on your donkey, sheikh

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

What absolute horse manure!
There are no countries on this planet with the degree of "security" you are supposedly seeking.
Every country is susceptible to an individual crossing their border illegally, either by slipping under the radar (quite literally) in the dead of night, or entering through normal channels using false documentation. That is every country.

On top of that, any country that engages with the rest of the world in any meaningful way, will also need a vast and expensive secret police force in order to follow every legitimate visitor, in case one of them has a secret agenda, such as pouring arsenic into a local water supply. You either need closed borders and very few foreign visitors (e.g Albania under Hoxha) or an economy totally bankrupted from funding numbers of secret police (e.g. Stasi in East Germany)

By your definition, every other country aside from these two is a "failed state".

Tell me that it would be impossible for the US to place an agent into Russia, and poison a low-level target not worthy of round-the-clock surveillance and protection? And get clean away afterwards without anybody knowing who was responsible? Looks like Russia would be a failed state too, if it was ever put to the test.

Or have I misunderstood you?

You probably have misunderstood. Yes, every country is susceptible to issues like illegal migration, crimes made by legal and illegal immigrants. But - vast majority of other countries are working through these issues either with their own law enforcement agencies, or professionals from both countries sit down and work everything through. What we have here is Therese May started scandals all over media asking Russia WTF this substance doing on their territory, and demanding answers within 24 hours. Like a hysterical bitch. While Russians did offer assistance and cooperation, but no official requests whatsoever have been sent to them by Britain. Not only such behavior does not help, but also project impression of the UK being a failed state - either incapable or unwilling to protect their own borders.

Jouhou wrote:

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy.

Freakysh wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, actually it makes absolute sense, so why would you possibly think differently?

Freakysh wrote:

Because it doesn't

Yes it does.{yawn}
That now makes two false claims by you, and two corrections by me. Only a complete bore would continue, so I'm out. Feel free to be that bore; it's what you excel at..

Freakysh wrote:

....because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty

That entire sentence is a complete fail. Speak in English please.

Freakysh wrote:

No it's fine, you've left out half the sentence, you do know how commas work, don't you?

The entire sentence is perfectly visible, and your answer is entirely predictable {yawn} No seriously, I saw it coming which is why I specifically inserted the word "entire". With or without commas it makes no sense. You did notice the word entire, didn't you? Or were you busy focussing on all the pretty commas?

Kindly re-write it so that it makes sense, with, as, many, commas, as, you, like.

Freakysh wrote:

You could put every country in the world in this basket

Why would you claim that? Examples and proof please.

Freakysh wrote:

Here's one. US false claims of WMD in Iraq. By this reasoning, you never need proof to claim any American misdoings, because hey, they've lied before.

That is one example for one country. Not quite the same as lying "about pretty much every other incident beforehand".

"Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy." - by many years of persistent lying in a number of cases.
You claimed every other country met that criteria, and then provided ONE example for ONE country. Why am I not surprised you failed that simple task?
You do know how to count more than one, don't you?
Examples and proof please. (with numbers commensurate with your claim re "every" country)

Freakysh wrote:

Now, on your donkey, sheikh.

Mine's a camel actually.
And it is you that is the ass.

anrec80 wrote:

. Not only such behavior does not help, but also project impression of the UK being a failed state - either incapable or unwilling to protect their own borders.

Russia hasn't extradited the culprits of the last Russian government murder on UK soil to the UK, has not cooperated on MH17 and is a de facto mafiacratie.

The west should just kick Russia out of Swift for good and eleminate any IP v4 and v6 routes in and out of Russia.

May has any legal right to nuke Putin. Doctrine wise chemical weapons are nukes. She is amazingly restrained.

Best regards
Thomas

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

You know what, lemme put it this way. If Russia was truly innocent, maybe they shouldn't have lied about pretty much every other incident beforehand. Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy.

Freakysh wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, actually it makes absolute sense, so why would you possibly think differently?

Freakysh wrote:

Because it doesn't

Yes it does.{yawn}
That now makes two false claims by you, and two corrections by me. Only a complete bore would continue, so I'm out. Feel free to be that bore; it's what you excel at..

Freakysh wrote:

....because I don't like some of the things they've done before, they can be guilty

That entire sentence is a complete fail. Speak in English please.

Freakysh wrote:

No it's fine, you've left out half the sentence, you do know how commas work, don't you?

The entire sentence is perfectly visible, and your answer is entirely predictable {yawn} No seriously, I saw it coming which is why I specifically inserted the word "entire". With or without commas it makes no sense. You did notice the word entire, didn't you? Or were you busy focussing on all the pretty commas?

Kindly re-write it so that it makes sense, with, as, many, commas, as, you, like.

Freakysh wrote:

You could put every country in the world in this basket

Why would you claim that? Examples and proof please.

Freakysh wrote:

Here's one. US false claims of WMD in Iraq. By this reasoning, you never need proof to claim any American misdoings, because hey, they've lied before.

That is one example for one country. Not quite the same as lying "about pretty much every other incident beforehand".

"Russia has not proven themselves trustworthy." - by many years of persistent lying in a number of cases.
You claimed every other country met that criteria, and then provided ONE example for ONE country. Why am I not surprised you failed that simple task?
You do know how to count more than one, don't you?
Examples and proof please. (with numbers commensurate with your claim re "every" country)

Freakysh wrote:

Now, on your donkey, sheikh.

Mine's a camel actually.
And it is you that is the ass.

Christ, you win buddy.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Every country is susceptible to an individual crossing their border illegally, either by slipping under the radar (quite literally) in the dead of night, or entering through normal channels using false documentation.
On top of that, any country that engages with the rest of the world in any meaningful way, will also need a vast and expensive secret police force in order to follow every legitimate visitor, in case one of them has a secret agenda, such as pouring arsenic into a local water supply. You either need closed borders and very few foreign visitors (e.g Albania under Hoxha) or an economy totally bankrupted from funding numbers of secret police (e.g. Stasi in East Germany)

By your definition, every other country aside from these two is a "failed state".

Tell me that it would be impossible for the US to place an agent into Russia, and poison a low-level target not worthy of round-the-clock surveillance and protection? And get clean away afterwards without anybody knowing who was responsible?

anrec80 wrote:

You probably have misunderstood. Yes, every country is susceptible to issues like illegal migration, crimes made by legal and illegal immigrants. But - vast majority of other countries are working through these issues either with their own law enforcement agencies, or professionals from both countries sit down and work everything through. What we have here is Therese May started scandals all over media asking Russia WTF this substance doing on their territory, and demanding answers within 24 hours. Like a hysterical bitch. While Russians did offer assistance and cooperation, but no official requests whatsoever have been sent to them by Britain. Not only such behavior does not help, but also project impression of the UK being a failed state - either incapable or unwilling to protect their own borders.

"Vast majority of other countries working these issues" implies the UK isn't concerned with safeguarding it's borders. Ummm..... constant media coverage and parliamentary debate suggests exactly the opposite. What hole have you been living in that this has escaped you? Or do you only read Pravda's version of reality? The truth is out there.....

"professionals from both countries sit down and work everything through"

- but that still doesn't stop one individual carefully planned event from happening, which is what you claimed, and I responded too. The UK, US, and any other state, can generally stop thousands of Russians entering a particular country, bringing Водка and carrying AK-47s, but it's almost impossible to stop one individual man (or woman) with a small phial of nerve agent in their pocket. That is the issue at hand.

While Russians did offer assistance and cooperation, but no official requests whatsoever have been sent to them by Britain

Can you prove that?

Not only such behavior does not help, but also project impression of the UK being a failed state - either incapable or unwilling to protect their own borders

You are repeating the same words, but failing to answer the questions.
Tell me that it would be impossible for the US to place an agent into Russia, and poison a low-level target not worthy of round-the-clock surveillance and protection ?On that basis, Russia would be incapable of protecting it's own borders, so does that make it a failed state, along with every other country in the world?
....still waiting.

Anrec80 wrote:

Therese May.....demanding answers within 24 hours. Like a hysterical bitch

I would genuinely like to think you regret making that particular comment. What do you say?

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So do you want to label the UK as a failed state instead of a free democratic society?

That will depend on UK’s behavior. As of now I am not yet saying that they are a failed state, but requests made by highest level politicians to explain what something or someone is doing within their borders - certainly are a step in this direction.

Your scope is way off.....

..............but then again we already knew that since you admire Putin and Kim.

tommy1808 wrote:

Russia hasn't extradited the culprits of the last Russian government murder on UK soil to the UK, has not cooperated on MH17 and is a de facto mafiacratie.

OK - slow down man. Most countries on this planet never extradite their citizens for trials elsewhere; British shouldn't have even bothered with this demand. There are though international agreements on investigations, but for that they needed to gather proof, build their case, work with Russian prosecution, go to Russian court and win the case there. But of course they didn't bother. Speaking of MH-17, the flight has nothing to do with Russia. There are no suspects named yet even - the latter is pushed into next year now (originally promised for 2018), and it's probably time to start doubting it will ever happen.

tommy1808 wrote:

The west should just kick Russia out of Swift for good and eleminate any IP v4 and v6 routes in and out of Russia.

What planet are you living on? West isn't the whole world. And not even close to half of it. There are other nations on this planet as well. Speaking of Swift - yes, you can do that; though Russians anticipate that chance and developed their own exchange system. In addition, these threats prompted them to enact legislature and require all internal transfers to not leave Russian jurisdiction (before they were also using Swift). And last but not least - with Swift Western intelligence can at least know who is paying whom and for what, and maybe keep an oligarch or two in check. If you shut Russians off - they will make things work for themselves, but Putin will be happy about it. Just as he is happy now with Britain's threats to confiscate Russian assets in the UK. This is his 15 year long dream - he has been convincing Russian businesses don't park too much money in Western jurisdictions for decades now, and probably can open champagne.

tommy1808 wrote:

May has any legal right to nuke Putin. Doctrine wise chemical weapons are nukes. She is amazingly restrained.

She or her predecessors would have done exactly that long ago. Had there been a real way of course. But - what is she going to nuke from? Does British Navy even has a carrier actually capable of lifting a nuke? At their better times all they had was 4 submarines with Tridents. Now - nobody knows if there is even one capable to go on a mission. And - don't forget the consequences: even an attempt to launch something at Russia will guarantee that the whole island will go under the sea for good within 15 minutes. And the world will remember Britain not only after its traditions, kings, best leaders, but also the last dumbest one who actually took a gamble by pressing that red button.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

"Vast majority of other countries working these issues" implies the UK isn't concerned with safeguarding it's borders. Ummm..... constant media coverage and parliamentary debate suggests exactly the opposite. What hole have you been living in that this has escaped you? Or do you only read Pravda's version of reality? The truth is out there.....

If they are concerned with safeguarding their own borders - why are they demand that someone else explains WTF is going on with their protection and how does stuff slip through? They themselves should investigate how did this thing make it onto the UK soil, and present report. And then scream.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

"professionals from both countries sit down and work everything through"

but that still doesn't stop one individual carefully planned event from happening, which is what you claimed, and I responded too. The UK, US, and any other state, can generally stop thousands of Russians entering a particular country, bringing Водка and carrying AK-47s, but it's almost impossible to stop one individual man (or woman) with a small phial of nerve agent in their pocket. That is the issue at hand.

Yes, it does not. What I was saying though was that the UK's borders are UK's responsibility, and nobody else's. A country, whose border such an individual penetrated, investigates itself how did that happen, presents results, and takes measures. And does not demand that someone answers what's happening on their borders. And then - work with professionals from his source country on agreements that reduce or prevent this kind of things. Again, instead of yelling of course.

anrec80 wrote:

Yes, it does not. What I was saying though was that the UK's borders are UK's responsibility, and nobody else's. A country, whose border such an individual penetrated, investigates itself how did that happen, presents results, and takes measures. And does not demand that someone answers what's happening on their borders. And then - work with professionals from his source country on agreements that reduce or prevent this kind of things. Again, instead of yelling of course.

The Russian government is most likely responsible, and you are saying that we should deal with the Russian government to prevent this?

Kestrel333 wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Well, the Brits have given the Russians the opportunity to explain how someone else may have gotten a hold of their unique chemical weapons which only Russia knows how to produce. Go ahead, tell us. Who got a hold of those?

True, except that British gave the Ambassador 36 hour window.

Plenty of time. It’s not a hard question to answer, is it?

Did the Russian State authorise this attack? Or was it made possible by the fact that the Russian State has lost control of the weapon?

It takes investigation according to appropriate international agreements, not the answers within 36 hours. Including analysis of all samples of course.

anrec80 wrote:

Kestrel333 wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

True, except that British gave the Ambassador 36 hour window.

Plenty of time. It’s not a hard question to answer, is it?

Did the Russian State authorise this attack? Or was it made possible by the fact that the Russian State has lost control of the weapon?

It takes investigation according to appropriate international agreements, not the answers within 36 hours. Including analysis of all samples of course.

As Russia has been working so well with the MH17 investigations? Russia has been proven yet again wrong:

https://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-oekraine/52 ... sland.html

anrec80 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Russia hasn't extradited the culprits of the last Russian government murder on UK soil to the UK, has not cooperated on MH17 and is a de facto mafiacratie.

OK - slow down man. Most countries on this planet never extradite their citizens for trials elsewhere;

Well, the Brits do. Regardless, countries that don't put those citizens on trial, if what they are accused of doing is a crime in their home country. I'd assume murder is a crime in Russia too.

the flight has nothing to do with Russia.

Correct, Russia had nothing to do with the flight, they are only responsible for the shot down. That would even be true if an Ukrainian buk had hit the 777, because there would not have been a war on if it wasn't for Russia.

tommy1808 wrote:

The west should just kick Russia out of Swift for good and eleminate any IP v4 and v6 routes in and out of Russia.

What planet are you living on? West isn't the whole world.

Not the planet fantasy you apparently live on. The internet, like it or not, is still in effect US government property, they still own the root zone servers.

Just as he is happy now with Britain's threats to confiscate Russian assets in the UK. This is his 15 year long dream - he has been convincing Russian businesses don't park too much money in Western jurisdictions for decades now, and probably can open champagne.

Since that is how he finances foreign operations and pays his assets, he needs them to park the money there, I dont think so. Russian billionaires serve at the kings laisure. That is how he paid Trump 50 million just recently after all. And managed to get him loans in 2009.

She or her predecessors would have done exactly that long ago. Had there been a real way of course. But - what is she going to nuke from? Does British Navy even has a carrier actually capable of lifting a nuke? At their better times all they had was 4 submarines with Tridents. Now - nobody knows if there is even one capable to go on a mission. And - don't forget the consequences: even an attempt to launch something at Russia will guarantee that the whole island will go under the sea for good within 15 minutes..

From nearby waters it will take a depressed trajectory trident about 6 minutes from detection to impact. There is exactly no way to figure out who shot at you before you get some plutonium samples out of the rubble .... so who are you shooting back at? Simply everyone?
MAD only works if there is no reasonable doubt who is firing at you. Could be the Chinese, so they can finally take Siberia as Lebensraum after it had cooled down.

And the world will remember Britain not only after its traditions, kings, best leaders, but also the last dumbest one who actually took a gamble by pressing that red button.

Winston Churchill here is remembered as the guy that helped to free us from the Nazis, not the guy that had civilian populations systematically firebombed to kill as many civilians as possible.

I am totally fine if MI6 can manage to get a Chechen a line if sight on Putin himself as well, but the UK would well be within its rights to reply in kind - WMD for WMD. I am not saying they should, just that they could.

Best regards
Thomas

The Russian Foreign Minister now barks on about MI6 having a 'licence to kill'. Dear oh dear, whose been watching too many James Bond films then? The real MI6 are Civil Servants FFS!
Then again, it can also be a case of projection on his part.

anrec80 wrote:

OK - slow down man. Most countries on this planet never extradite their citizens for trials elsewhere; British shouldn't have even bothered with this demand. There are though international agreements on investigations, but for that they needed to gather proof, build their case, work with Russian prosecution, go to Russian court and win the case there.

Not when the crime happens on British soil. It doesn't work like that.
For instance, if it had been a British subject, murdered in France, we would have to ask France to seek extradition of the Russian murderers.
Are you familiar with Pan Am 103? That was an American aircraft, full of American citizens, but the crime happened in British airspace. Lockerbie is in the Scottish district of "Dumfries & Galloway", hence they took the lead in the investigation, and it should have been processed through the Scottish courts. I drove through Lockerbie about six months ago.

Wikipedia wrote:

Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands, after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions.

Only after negotiations and sanctions. And you are saying they should left it to a Libyan prosecution, and Libyan courts?
Gaddafi, Putin, same thing.

tommy1808 wrote:

May has any legal right to nuke Putin.

anrec80 wrote:

But - what is she going to nuke from? Does British Navy even has a carrier actually capable of lifting a nuke? At their better times all they had was 4 submarines with Tridents. Now - nobody knows if there is even one capable to go on a mission. And - don't forget the consequences: even an attempt to launch something at Russia will guarantee that the whole island will go under the sea for good within 15 minutes. And the world will remember Britain not only after its traditions, kings, best leaders, but also the last dumbest one who actually took a gamble by pressing that red button.

But how would you know for sure it was a British nuke, if it was launched from a submarine in international waters anywhere on the planet?

anrec80 wrote:

It takes investigation according to appropriate international agreements, not the answers within 36 hours. Including analysis of all samples of course.

Guess you are quite prepared to skip that part when it's Russia on the receiving end

Porton down lab unable to prove the novichok came from Russia

A couple of weeks ago, Boris Johnson said in an interview that Porton Down had no doubt that the Russians were behind this.

What's now for Boris Johnson?

Dutchy wrote:

As Russia has been working so well with the MH17 investigations? Russia has been proven yet again wrong:

https://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-oekraine/52 ... sland.html

Yeah I read this - the BUK missile "might have not been seen" by the radar. Where are the suspects though? And where's the BUK?

Dutchy wrote:

The Russian government is most likely responsible, and you are saying that we should deal with the Russian government to prevent this?

"Most likely" is not yet responsible. To work with Russia or not - it depends what you want. If you want a chance to find those responsible, understand what happened, how this stuff gets onto UK soil, and what are all those "spy thrillers" - yes, you need to work with Russian government, there is no way around it. If you want to just blow scandals - then you don't have yo work with Russians, but won't achieve anything.

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, the Brits do. Regardless, countries that don't put those citizens on trial, if what they are accused of doing is a crime in their home country. I'd assume murder is a crime in Russia too.

Yes, the murder is a crime. In order to hold the alleged murderer accountable in this case, you need to intiate a cooperation with Russian authorities and present them a proof which later can be taken to a Russian court. Without any proof or evidence, of course, nobody will open any case or put anyone to jail. But there were never any requests made to Russians other than demands for extradition.

tommy1808 wrote:

Correct, Russia had nothing to do with the flight, they are only responsible for the shot down. That would even be true if an Ukrainian buk had hit the 777, because there would not have been a war on if it wasn't for Russia.

In 4 years, all sorts of European MPs (from virtually every EU country), mayors of cities, etc. visited Donetsk. Nobody has seen anywhere there any opf those "Russian troops". Ukrainians haven't shown a single one either - in recent all prisoner exchanges, only Ukrainian citizens have been exchanged from both sides. Perhaps it's time to stop talking about "Russian involvment" and kick Kiev regime to finally take responsibility for that mess and sort it out? Once they claim it's still their territory of course; else they can just acknowledge region's independeence.

tommy1808 wrote:

Not the planet fantasy you apparently live on. The internet, like it or not, is still in effect US government property, they still own the root zone servers.

Well, people who are making decisions apparently evaluated that. Perhaps efficiency of such a move would be low and value would be negative. Nothing prevents Russian or other ISPs to also host .ru and .su domain zones.

tommy1808 wrote:

Since that is how he finances foreign operations and pays his assets, he needs them to park the money there, I dont think so. Russian billionaires serve at the kings laisure. That is how he paid Trump 50 million just recently after all. And managed to get him loans in 2009.

The world revolves around neither London nor New York. There are plenty of other places that would take this money. Russian government has excellent financial intelligence, and uses quite a few offshore firms in Cyprus and other places to their international operations. In particular, it was through Cyprus firms when they bough back into state's ownership quite shares a few strategic enterprises for cheap from Western investors. I think these are rather desperate attempts to find quick, easy and loud solutions to rather hard problems, if solveable at all.

tommy1808 wrote:

From nearby waters it will take a depressed trajectory trident about 6 minutes from detection to impact. There is exactly no way to figure out who shot at you before you get some plutonium samples out of the rubble .... so who are you shooting back at? Simply everyone?
MAD only works if there is no reasonable doubt who is firing at you. Could be the Chinese, so they can finally take Siberia as Lebensraum after it had cooled down.

tommy1808 wrote:

I am totally fine if MI6 can manage to get a Chechen a line if sight on Putin himself as well, but the UK would well be within its rights to reply in kind - WMD for WMD. I am not saying they should, just that they could.

Not as simple I suppose. Chechens got their fair share of independence in 90s and don't want any MI-6 anywhere around.

Freakysh wrote:

A couple of weeks ago, Boris Johnson said in an interview that Porton Down had no doubt that the Russians were behind this.

What's now for Boris Johnson?

Haha, this is hilarious. Something to be expected. When are we accepting apologies here for all that anti-Russian mess?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Not when the crime happens on British soil. It doesn't work like that.
For instance, if it had been a British subject, murdered in France, we would have to ask France to seek extradition of the Russian murderers.
Are you familiar with Pan Am 103? That was an American aircraft, full of American citizens, but the crime happened in British airspace. Lockerbie is in the Scottish district of "Dumfries & Galloway", hence they took the lead in the investigation, and it should have been processed through the Scottish courts. I drove through Lockerbie about six months ago.

Why not - is Britain any special in the world or something? Every country has their own legislature, and some even have Constitution. Russian Constitution, for example, explicitly prohobits extradition of their citizens. Ukrainian Constitution has a similar provision. No law enforcement official or court will go against that expectedly. Hence - if you want justice, you need to leverage international agreements you have in place.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

But how would you know for sure it was a British nuke, if it was launched from a submarine in international waters anywhere on the planet?

Well - this is a HUUUGE gamble. One submarine can't destroy whole Russia. The latest hours later they will figure out who this was, Britain has 15 minutes left to live. And Western military strategists are no fanatics, gamblers or suiciders. They are calculating consequences of something like this regularly; this is their job. But - they need to be confident nothing flies back in response. And the latter is tougest - West is well aware of Russia's "Permieter" system - called the "dead hand". Even if you manage to destroy all command centers and political leadership - this system will automatically engage all the remaining nuclear triade. West succeeded in negotiating it being shut down as part of one of the agreements during 90s, but after USA denounced missile defense agreements, it's back up, functioning and is being upgraded.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Guess you are quite prepared to skip that part when it's Russia on the receiving end

[/quote]
Not necessarily. There are agreements and protocols within Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that indicate how such incidents are to be investigated. Ultimatums and demands for explanations aren't part of them, but samples are.

anrec80 wrote:

Well, the Brits do. Regardless, countries that don't put those citizens on trial, if what they are accused of doing is a crime in their home country. I'd assume murder is a crime in Russia too.

Yes, the murder is a crime. In order to hold the alleged murderer accountable in this case, you need to intiate a cooperation with Russian authorities and present them a proof which later can be taken to a Russian court. Without any proof or evidence, of course, nobody will open any case or put anyone to jail. But there were never any requests made to Russians other than demands for extradition.[/quote]

haha...... cute you think Putin would put his own Assassins on trial...

In 4 years, all sorts of European MPs (from virtually every EU country), mayors of cities, etc. visited Donetsk. Nobody has seen anywhere there any opf those "Russian troops". Ukrainians haven't shown a single one either - in recent all prisoner exchanges, only Ukrainian citizens have been exchanged from both sides. Perhaps it's time to stop talking about "Russian involvment" and kick Kiev regime to finally take responsibility for that mess and sort it out? Once they claim it's still their territory of course; else they can just acknowledge region's independeence.

Crimea is still occupied, there are still Russian troops in Ukraine. You can find plenty of of T-72B3 wreckage in eastern Ukraine, Putin in his endless stupidity has allowed his Generals to send weapons only the Russian military has into the Donbass. Of course you can not expect MPs to tell different T-72 models apart......or to check dispersion patterns of artillery impacts vs. where the fire is coming from. From Russia, across the border.....

And there is this tiny bit that your Master Putin has conceded the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine 3 years ago......

Well, people who are making decisions apparently evaluated that. Perhaps efficiency of such a move would be low and value would be negative. Nothing prevents Russian or other ISPs to also host .ru and .su domain zones.

You can run your own DNS, but that won´t work with the rest of the world. .RU and .SU are wherever the Root Servers say it is, that there is a 2nd .ru and .su namespace only matters for the people using that DNS, which in that case will be Russians only. DNS is a top down service.

The world revolves around neither London nor New York. There are plenty of other places that would take this money. Russian government has excellent financial intelligence, and uses quite a few offshore firms in Cyprus and other places to their international operations. In particular, it was through Cyprus firms when they bough back into state's ownership quite shares a few strategic enterprises for cheap from Western investors. I think these are rather desperate attempts to find quick, easy and loud solutions to rather hard problems, if solveable at all.

Cyprus did already freeze all bank accounts a few years ago, they can do that again at whatever time they chose. Illegal money can be seized, and since pretty much all Russian money is connected to crime .....

Not as simple I suppose. Chechens got their fair share of independence in 90s and don't want any MI-6 anywhere around.

Who says it is simple? There is no such think as a "fair share of independence", you are independent or you are not. They got their fair share of ballistic missiles targeting civilians. Putin is fair game like Saddam or Gaddafi have been. Whoever drills him for good will be remembered as a hero to the world.

best regards
Thomas

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The Russian government is most likely responsible, and you are saying that we should deal with the Russian government to prevent this?

"Most likely" is not yet responsible. To work with Russia or not - it depends what you want. If you want a chance to find those responsible, understand what happened, how this stuff gets onto UK soil, and what are all those "spy thrillers" - yes, you need to work with Russian government, there is no way around it. If you want to just blow scandals - then you don't have yo work with Russians, but won't achieve anything.

So you are saying the Putin regime is responsible. Putin will not like that.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As Russia has been working so well with the MH17 investigations? Russia has been proven yet again wrong:

https://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-oekraine/52 ... sland.html

Yeah I read this - the BUK missile "might have not been seen" by the radar. Where are the suspects though? And where's the BUK?

BUK missile exploded taking down the MH17.

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As Russia has been working so well with the MH17 investigations? Russia has been proven yet again wrong:

https://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-oekraine/52 ... sland.html

Yeah I read this - the BUK missile "might have not been seen" by the radar. Where are the suspects though? And where's the BUK?

BUK missile exploded taking down the MH17.

there was no aircraft near by and no other missile was on the Radar. That tells us more about the quality, or lack thereof, of Russian radars than anything else.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

BUK missile exploded taking down the MH17.

Everyone knows that. And besides that - does the JIT even have anything else?

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BUK missile exploded taking down the MH17.

Everyone knows that. And besides that - does the JIT even have anything else?

Was there anything else? The BUK took it down and all the Su-25 Russian theories are bogus, so no nothing else happened. But all you want to know you can see at their website, very transparent, including the Russians they want to talk to. But you already know that, because you have been told numerous times.

tommy1808 wrote:

haha...... cute you think Putin would put his own Assassins on trial...

You may think anything you like, but there is no way other than to actually establish contacts with someone from Russian authorities. Had Brits done that - we all could say they've made their fair and good-faith attempt. Instead all they did is pushed a demand that had no chance to begin with and are making scandal out of it.

tommy1808 wrote:

Crimea is still occupied, there are still Russian troops in Ukraine. You can find plenty of of T-72B3 wreckage in eastern Ukraine, Putin in his endless stupidity has allowed his Generals to send weapons only the Russian military has into the Donbass. Of course you can not expect MPs to tell different T-72 models apart......or to check dispersion patterns of artillery impacts vs. where the fire is coming from. From Russia, across the border.....

Crimea - forget about it, it's a different story and is gone for good. Donbass - yes, there are T-72s, obtained from Ukrainian military when they were suffering defeats and from military divisions stationed there. All of those are from USSR times, Ukraine never bought anything new. Russia doesn't have arms that old by now. And - occupation consists not only of arms, primarily there are people involved. And nobody has ever seen those.

tommy1808 wrote:

You can run your own DNS, but that won´t work with the rest of the world. .RU and .SU are wherever the Root Servers say it is, that there is a 2nd .ru and .su namespace only matters for the people using that DNS, which in that case will be Russians only. DNS is a top down service.

Look - I know how does DNS work. While these seem like bold moves, they really won't change anything.

The world revolves around neither London nor New York. There are plenty of other places that would take this money. Russian government has excellent financial intelligence, and uses quite a few offshore firms in Cyprus and other places to their international operations. In particular, it was through Cyprus firms when they bough back into state's ownership quite shares a few strategic enterprises for cheap from Western investors. I think these are rather desperate attempts to find quick, easy and loud solutions to rather hard problems, if solveable at all.

tommy1808 wrote:

Cyprus did already freeze all bank accounts a few years ago, they can do that again at whatever time they chose. Illegal money can be seized, and since pretty much all Russian money is connected to crime .....

"All" - you are well over-killing. Russian business uses offshore accounts just as American and European business does. Not much difference here.

tommy1808 wrote:

Who says it is simple? There is no such think as a "fair share of independence", you are independent or you are not. They got their fair share of ballistic missiles targeting civilians. Putin is fair game like Saddam or Gaddafi have been. Whoever drills him for good will be remembered as a hero to the world.

Yes. And during their brief period of independence they also got sick and tired all sorts of murderers and terrorists, both local and international. In their view - independence is when all sorts of terrorists from all over the world roam around - wherever they want, cutting heads to whomever and whenever they want. Expectedly - no thank you. Putin put an end to this in 1999 and 2000, and started investments to rebuild the republic. Hence it's no wonder that in Chechnya he gets highest percentage of votes.

Lol, chechnya. The land of jihadi training camps. Yeah, I think the Chechens really loved what Russia handed to them.

Dutchy wrote:

Was there anything else? The BUK took it down and all the Su-25 Russian theories are bogus, so no nothing else happened. But all you want to know you can see at their website, very transparent, including the Russians they want to talk to. But you already know that, because you have been told numerous times.

Let's say I don't believe in SU-25 theory either. But really JIT doesn't have much more than just "social media-based" Bellingcat "investigation", and still nobody knows what was that BUK launcher, what's its history and what happened to it between then and now. And delays in the investigation don't add any confidence of course.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Was there anything else? The BUK took it down and all the Su-25 Russian theories are bogus, so no nothing else happened. But all you want to know you can see at their website, very transparent, including the Russians they want to talk to. But you already know that, because you have been told numerous times.

Let's say I don't believe in SU-25 theory either. But really JIT doesn't have much more than just "social media-based" Bellingcat "investigation", and still nobody knows what was that BUK launcher, what's its history and what happened to it between then and now. And delays in the investigation don't add any confidence of course.

1. Su-25 theory is bogus and proven so, no need to believe either way.
2. If you were really interested you would have read the JIT report and you know what evidence there was to support the theory and that you tried to frame it like you do is nothing else we expect from a Putin devotee.
3. BUK launcher itself has probably been shredded by now, probably by the Russian military because they owned the bloody thing.

Don't try to pin it on Ukraine because that record is beginning to sound very old by now and isn't supported by a shred of evidence.

anrec80 wrote:

You may think anything you like, but there is no way other than to actually establish contacts with someone from Russian authorities. Had Brits done that - we all could say they've made their fair and good-faith attempt. Instead all they did is pushed a demand that had no chance to begin with and are making scandal out of it.

no point with a Mafiacratie like Russia. They obstruct justice, murder Journalists and fake evidence all the time. Like made up SU-25s on radar that never where.

Crimea - forget about it, it's a different story and is gone for good.

na, it is and will remain Ukranian territory.

Donbass - yes, there are T-72s, obtained from Ukrainian military when they were suffering defeats and from military divisions stationed there. All of those are from USSR times

That T72 variant has only ever been used by the Russian military, Ukraine never had those, hence you make shit up. That variant was never shipped to the USSR red army, only to Russia´s, starting in 2011. As far as i know Relikt ERA was never exported, period. Yet it showed up on Tanks in Donbass.

Look - I know how does DNS work

if you think that someone can just run TLDs and expect those to work on the Internet instead of just the Russia net, you apparently have no clue how DNS works.

"All" - you are well over-killing. Russian business uses offshore accounts just as American and European business does. Not much difference here.

Overkilling is what Russia is in desperate need of. They should just take all sanctions against North Korea and swap out its name with Russian Federation.

Hence it's no wonder that in Chechnya he gets highest percentage of votes.

haha.... to get votes you need an election. Russia doesn´t have those.

best regards
Thomas

anrec80 wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

A couple of weeks ago, Boris Johnson said in an interview that Porton Down had no doubt that the Russians were behind this.

What's now for Boris Johnson?

Haha, this is hilarious. Something to be expected. When are we accepting apologies here for all that anti-Russian mess?

Ha ha, apologies

You may as well be talking to North Koreans here. These people can't think for themselves.

They will be scratching their heads as to how the UK government said something that wasn't true, but that's about it, there will be no reflection as to how and why.

Carry on though, it's amusing to watch.

I am struck by the number of fools who think that an unidentified submarine may emerge somewhere in international waters and launch an Intercontinental missile with a nuclear warhead.

First, all carriers of nuclear charges in the world are constantly monitored. For this purpose there are systems of satellite monitoring and patrols of anti-submarine aircraft, as well as systems of hydroacoustic tracking of potentially dangerous areas.
Secondly, I am touched by representatives of the Western countries who consider themselves to be "more developed part of mankind", discussing drawing nuclear blow to Russia without official Declaration of war, secretly that didn't track down. This is essentially terrorism in its worst form.
Third, a single launch of ICBMs in Russia or, in the US, will not bring results, as missile DEFENSE systems are able to intercept a single ICBM. This is likely not to cause a retaliatory nuclear strike, but the launch area will be tracked by the OSR system immediately at the time of launch, and an anti-submarine group will go there, which is likely to hunt down and destroy the submarine from which the launch was made during the day.
In this case, the type of submarine and its affiliation will be determined almost immediately after its detection. And the launch of the IDB with nuclear weapons would be sufficient reason to declare war on the state that committed this act of terrorism.
After that, the conditional Britain will be strikingly rolled out by the Russian armed forces to the stone age. And have no illusions about the fact that the armed forces of Britain able to withstand the massive amphibious operations of the armed forces on its territory.
Among other things, I would like to point out that sanctions policy is also a form of state terrorism. And this terrorism, promoted exclusively by the countries Of the axis of Evil (the United States and the NATO bloc are now representatives of this Axis), has already fed up with the world community.
Ultimately, the current policies of the West are waging a new world war.
Too many countries in the world have already suffered from the US and its henchmen - too much hatred for the false West has accumulated in the world.

Jouhou wrote:

Lol, chechnya. The land of jihadi training camps. Yeah, I think the Chechens really loved what Russia handed to them.

Lol, what a coincidence - Jihad training camps were in Chechnya at the time of its so-called "independence", which was warmly supported by the countries of the West. Also, these training camps in abundance were located on the territory of Georgia in the period 2000-2005. And financing of terrorists in Chechnya went directly from such countries as Qatar, UAE, Britain, USA. What a wonderful coincidence!
Especially pleased with the large number of black "fighters for the freedom of Chechnya", originally from African Muslim countries, who suddenly appeared in Chechnya in large quantities.
Or, for example, the citizens of Ukraine Oleg Tyagnibok, Dmitry Korchinsky, Dmitry Yarosh, Alexander Muzychko - are members of the Ukrainian Nazi organization UNA-UNSO. And (quite by accident!) are one of the initiators of the Maidan in Ukraine.

Scorpius wrote:

I am struck by the number of fools who think that an unidentified submarine may emerge somewhere in international waters and launch an Intercontinental missile with a nuclear warhead.

First, all carriers of nuclear charges in the world are constantly monitored. For this purpose there are systems of satellite monitoring and patrols of anti-submarine aircraft, as well as systems of hydroacoustic tracking of potentially dangerous areas.
Secondly, I am touched by representatives of the Western countries who consider themselves to be "more developed part of mankind", discussing drawing nuclear blow to Russia without official Declaration of war, secretly that didn't track down. This is essentially terrorism in its worst form.
Third, a single launch of ICBMs in Russia or, in the US, will not bring results, as missile DEFENSE systems are able to intercept a single ICBM. This is likely not to cause a retaliatory nuclear strike, but the launch area will be tracked by the OSR system immediately at the time of launch, and an anti-submarine group will go there, which is likely to hunt down and destroy the submarine from which the launch was made during the day.
In this case, the type of submarine and its affiliation will be determined almost immediately after its detection. And the launch of the IDB with nuclear weapons would be sufficient reason to declare war on the state that committed this act of terrorism.
After that, the conditional Britain will be strikingly rolled out by the Russian armed forces to the stone age. And have no illusions about the fact that the armed forces of Britain able to withstand the massive amphibious operations of the armed forces on its territory.
Among other things, I would like to point out that sanctions policy is also a form of state terrorism. And this terrorism, promoted exclusively by the countries Of the axis of Evil (the United States and the NATO bloc are now representatives of this Axis), has already fed up with the world community.
Ultimately, the current policies of the West are waging a new world war.
Too many countries in the world have already suffered from the US and its henchmen - too much hatred for the false West has accumulated in the world.

Complete bullocks yet again, but since you ignore me, I will not go into this "masterpiece" from mr. "see our tanks in Lisbon".

Scorpius wrote:

discussing drawing nuclear blow to Russia without official Declaration of war, secretly that didn't track down.

Russia conducted a WMD attack on the UK without declaration of war, that is:

essentially terrorism in its worst form.

Russia started the war, they should count their blessings for the rest of the world being so restrained.

First, all carriers of nuclear charges in the world are constantly monitored. For this purpose there are systems of satellite monitoring and patrols of anti-submarine aircraft, as well as systems of hydroacoustic tracking of potentially dangerous areas.

As far as we know the Russian Navy did not manage to track a boomer even once during the last decades, and for that matter neither France, the UK or the US can track even their own.They are quite enough to collide without noticing each other.

best regards
Thomas