Printable View
Of course not because being shunned socially is far worse than....Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatic
SMHQuote:
By 1992, when the interview was published, the nerve agent had gutted Zheleznyakov’s central nervous system. Less than a year later he was dead, after battling cirrhosis, toxic hepatitis, nerve damage and epilepsy.
Grow your own dope. Plant a pom.
A nerve agent that takes five years to kill it's victims. Very useful in a battlefield situation.
He was only exposed because of a hood malfunction and received the antidote almost immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Begbie
Quote:
The case of a Russian military scientist accidentally exposed to Novichok appears to show that even surviving the effects of the supertoxic nerve agent is horrific.
Andrei Zheleznyakov was said to have been injected with an antidote almost immediately, but a friend said he still went from being a jovial, creative man to suffering “chronic weakness, toxic hepatitis, epilepsy, severe depression and an inability to concentrate”, before dying five years later.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8253976.html
But nothing to indicate that the nerve agent was the cause of death.Quote:
Andrei Zheleznyakov was said to have been injected with an antidote almost immediately, but a friend said he still went from being a jovial, creative man to suffering “chronic weakness, toxic hepatitis, epilepsy, severe depression and an inability to concentrate”, before dying five years later.
"He died in 1993 of a brain seizure".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatic
Any proof that the Russians did it yet?
:chitown:
Highly likely is the new proof for now..Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
Don't expect the proof finding committee to present a result "without any doubt" in the near future, they are all busy searching for Saddams weapon of mass destruction.
But you trust the russians eh?
...solid Canadian riposte...Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo
They are angels in heaven who can do no wrong as far as Neo and OhDoh are concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo
...RT uber alles!...Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
...:rofl:...oops! Red for stepping on a sensitive RT nerve...
Thread: Former Russian spy critically ill in Britain after exposure to unidentified substance
an argument?
No, but that is quite irrelevant in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo
Take action when there is proof, shutup when there only are unproven theories.
...RT has openings for contributors...Quote:
Originally Posted by lom
Probably, but that is quite irrelevant in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
...^ah, I thought this was an audition thread...
The Russian government you mean? Not particularly, but sadly I trust the UK government even less.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo
I'm British, and an expat.
I have a very good friend who is Russian, one of my work colleagues.
He's a very honest, generous and hard working man, liked by all.
He doesn't particularly like the Russian system either, but life today is far better than it was 10 years ago and infinitely better than it was prior to that, despite Western sanctions making life very difficult economically for the Russians.
From his perspective Russia is not the aggressor, Russia wants closer economic and social ties to Europe, but sees the West and Nato repeatedly hostile toward Russian people and encroaching toward it's borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So he didn't invade Crimea then, he was just "wanting closer economic and social ties to Europe".
You little joker you.
:rofl:
The impartial OPCW, :rolleyes: are looking at the UK supplied "evidence" as we speak. Very similar to the terrorist supplied "evidence" in Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo
Which could equally dismissed as "contaminated", by the OPCW team or other interested parties.
:chitown:
you really are just totally fucking stupid aren't you...Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
:chitown:
Any argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
This is not what 'arry wants to hear...Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
No, he didn't. But you already know that. Of course, if you can show me some (photoshopped) pictures of invading armies, battlefield casualties etc I might stoop to take a second look- but until then, the crushing result of the Crimean Parliamentary Referendum is proof enough.Quote:
So he didn't invade Crimea then
Meanwhile, ain't newly Coup installed democratic Ukraine doing well. :yerman:
It wasn't going to be long before the whackjobs started trying to discredit the OPCW was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
:rolleyes:
Perhaps you shouldn't always believe what your Russian boyfriend tells you. Remember he gets all this shit off state-controlled media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
You chump.
It's hard to say what planet you whackjobs come from where you don't think moving into a sovereign state with troops and military equipment and annexing their territory doesn't count as "invading".....Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Oh Harry will listen to Neo's shite. At least he write posts that are comprehensible, unlike the garbled drivel you post most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
harry... it's so simple even snub could get it
he's Russian, he lives in Russia
And, like you, he watches and believes every word of RT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
:chitown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
I have noticed that people living in Thailand slowly but surely loose their marbles. :chitown:
Putin annual broadcast to the Russian people on April 16, 2015: “I can tell you outright and unequivocally that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.”
Then came a so called "election" and they popped up like mushroom....and made sure that the RIGHT people cast their vote.
Get out of the sun Sabang !!!!!!!!
I think you desperately need more sun Hermione. I suppose Putin wasn't democratically re-elected either?
Anyway, changes nothing. 2014:-
Crimea only became part of Ukraine when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave the peninsula to his native land in 1954. This hardly mattered until the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 and Crimea ended up in an independent Ukraine. Despite that, nearly 60 percent of its population of 2 million identify themselves as Russians.
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/e...yway-1.5327748
Following a peacefully held Crimean Referendum with a crushing result, that ensued from the illegal and violent Ukrainian coup d'état, it is now Russian again. Au revoir.
You forgot a bit of your article:
so by your logic, it was a mistake by the Ukraine to not have done what Russians do best:Quote:
History
Crimea was absorbed into the Russian empire along with most of ethnic Ukrainian territory by Catherine the Great in the 18th century.
Should have deported al those Russians while they had a chance. :chitown:Quote:
The Tatars were deported en masse by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin
Why is there so much LOVE for Russians by the former U.S.S.R. States or East Block countries ?
Tough one to answer :rolleyes:
Ask Xi Jinping :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
The Russian military were already in Crimea, as part of agreements between two sovereign countries, prior to any democratic election was held in Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Allegedly these define the arrangement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partit...lack_Sea_Fleet
The 1997 Black Sea Fleet Agreement Between Russia and Ukraine | ERIC POSNER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact
No Russians "annexed" Ukrainian territory. It was ceded to Russia in 1792 by the Ottoman empire.
"The Treaty of Jassy, signed at Jassy (Iași) in Moldavia (presently in Romania), was a pact between the Russian and Ottoman Empires ending the Russo-Turkish War of 1787–92 and confirming Russia's increasing dominance in the Black Sea.[1]
The treaty was signed on 9 January 1792 by Grand Vizier Koca Yusuf Pasha and Prince Bezborodko (who had succeeded Prince Potemkin as the head of the Russian delegation when Potemkin died). The Treaty of Jassy formally recognized the Russian Empire's annexation of the Crimean Khanate via the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca of 1783[2] and transferred Yedisan (the territory between Dniester and Bug rivers) to Russia making the Dniester the Russo-Turkish frontier in Europe, and leaving the Asiatic frontier (Kuban River) unchanged."
Even the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign minister call the Eastern Ukrainians, currently fighting as "pro-Russian forces", not Russian. he of all people should know.Quote:
Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
"Providing details about the ongoing Minsk process to restore peace in eastern Ukraine, Prystaiko said that the currently pro-Russian forces have not withdrawn and that this situation has not allowed them to move further in their political dialogue, stalling the settlement of the crisis. However, Prystaiko did underline the significance of the Minsk agreement. ''Over the last two and a half years, we have been working on an agreement called "the Minsk Agreement," and this is the only agreement. This agreement is not perfect, and in Ukraine, we believe that it's not fair that this it is the only legal mechanism to stop aggression and to stop the advancement of troops,'' he said. ''Now, we are in a very long negotiation period. In a couple of days, I'll be going to Berlin for another round of negotiations with the deputy ministers of foreign affairs, and this is a special mechanism established by the leaders of Minsk,'' Prystaiko added. ''In addition, all the four Minsk leaders will also gather soon, so all of these political initiatives should lead to greater success,'' he concluded."
https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/...crimean-tatars
Care to share your proof of any Russain invasion.
Some may wish to read this article regarding the illegal Ukrainian annexation of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, established in 1991.
How Ukraine Annexed Crimea. A Frank Conversation with Nikki Haley
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=10726&stc=1
"The speech by the new US permanent representative to the UN Security Council, Nikki Haley, at a Security Council meeting on 3 February backed up the idea that the foreign policies of two American administrations – the previous one and the current one – will be continued. Haley said exactly the same as Samantha Power before her: «Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine».
The White House supported Haley’s statement on the need for Crimea to be returned to Ukraine, and the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, stated during a briefing that: «With respect to the sanctions, I think Ambassador Haley made it very clear of our concern with Russia’s occupation of Crimea. I think she spoke very forcefully and clearly on that».
It is interesting that Mrs Haley was speaking about the territory of Crimea rather than the people. I wonder how this American imagines the «return» of the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine – with the people or without them? It’s a pity that this question has remained unanswered.
Do the Crimean people regard themselves as Ukrainian? And does Nikki Haley know the answer to this most important question? It is unlikely that the US ambassador to the UN wants to move the people out of Crimea so that she can give the peninsula back to Ukraine. Especially as she would have to move not only the living, but also the dead, since the ‘Ukrainian’ history of Crimea is very short, around a quarter of a century. It is surprising that the citizen of a country whose constitution begins with the words «We the people of the United States...» is doing everything to avoid a conversation at the level of «We the people of Crimea...» But everything really does look different from that position........"
https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...kki-haley.html
It may "clarify" the situation for some.
A new insight to the health and care of two patients has been discused in a UK courtroom. The discussion necessary due to neither of the two are able to give consent to further investigations which may be termed "non-clinical" i.e. not medically required but may assit any investigation into their attack. In such circumstances in the UK various laws come into play regarding medical issues. In this case the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
A very long High Court Judgement dated 22/3/18 has been issued.
Available here:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...r-20180322.pdf
Two points:
1. The Russian have accused the UK authorities of blocking any attempt by a Russian Embassy representative in the UK, from visiting the Russian female citizen. There doesn't appear to be any mention of any requests received from the Embassy to the hospital. As the court acts instead of any guidance from family members, or those who "interested in his welfare" any requests from the Russian Embassy to visit the patient, could be considered as "interested in her welfare".
2. The judge appears to be very clear and thoughtful of every possibility. not only in the application of the relevant law, but equally sound in his call for clarity, responsibilities and consequences of the action he is authorising.
Good for him.
Some points from his judgement.
From Section 17 v) h)
"The hospital has not been approached by anyone known to the patients to enquire of their welfare."
From Section 23 7)
"He must take into account, if it is practicable and appropriate to consult them, the views of
(a)anyone named by the person as someone to be consulted on the matter in question or on matters of that kind,
(b)anyone engaged in caring for the person orinterested in his welfare,"
[Either the Russians are lying about trying to visit the Russian citizen and showing an "interest in her welfare", they sent a spy to check out the hospital only to find thy had been moved, elsewhere, or the hospital representative, (ZZ treating Consultant) has lied about the Embassy requesting a visit to wherever the patients are being held, to the judge in their evidence]
2. From Section 14 ii) d)
"In addition the other factors that Mr Skripal or Ms Skripal would be likely to consider if he or she were able to would include the effects of their decision on others and their duties as responsible citizens. In particular they would be likely to want to support the work of the international body set up by international law knowing that its processes are unimpeachable, it is entirely independent, that the results of its enquiry would potentially be beneficial to the criminal investigation, confirming the nature of the attack and the substance used; assistance in bringing to justice those responsible; identifying those who carried out the attack. They would want to support the UK Government in taking steps on the international plane to hold those responsible to account."
From section 30:
............."Their enquiry can be expected to be entirely objective and independent. The results of their enquiry will likely hold very considerable weight in any forum. Their enquiry is therefore likely to produce the most robust, objective, independent and reliable material which will inform any determination of what happened to Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal. That might simply confirm the current conclusions, it might elaborate or clarify them, it might reach a different conclusion. Although the Secretary of State does not believe the latter prospect to be likely given her confidence in Porton Down’s findings I do not think the possibility can be ignored –and in particular I do not think an individual faced with supporting or not supporting such an inquiry would ignore that possibility at this stage."
From section 31:
............" accept that Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal’s decision would be influenced by these values and beliefs and that the influence would be in favour of consenting to the taking and testing of samples and disclosure of notes. I am satisfied that an inquiry such as the OPCW will conduct which might verify Porton Down’s conclusion, might elaborate or clarify them or might reach a different conclusion is something they would wish be conducted and they would want to assist in that by providing samples.
From section 35:
.........."I accept ZZ’s point that disclosure of medical records should only go so far as is necessary and this will cover disclosure from the period 4 March 2018 and for the specific information that the OPCW has sought. If it is sought I consider that it is in their best interests that OPCW is provided with copies of the relevant records not merely having sight of them. The processes which are in place for maintaining the confidentiality of such records (along with the integrity of the samples) which are evidenced satisfy me that copies could be provided subject to their destruction or return at the conclusion of the enquiry.
From section 36:
............" my judgment falls very clearly in favour of the taking of the samples, their submission for analysis by OPCW and the disclosure of the medical notes to aid that process. In so far as it is necessary it is also lawful and in their best interests that the existing samples are provided to OPCW for further testing."
From section 37:
I will therefore make Declarations pursuant to section 15 Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Orders pursuant to section 16 Mental Capacity Act 2005 that:
i) Mr Skripal lacks capacity to make a decision as to the provision of blood samples, the testing of blood samples and disclosure of medical notes
ii) Ms Skripal lacks capacity to make a decision as to the provision of blood samples, the testing of blood samples and disclosure of medical notes
iii) That it is lawful for Salisbury NHS Trust to take blood samples for provision to OPCW and to provide copies of medical notes to OPCW
iv) That it is in the best interests of Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal for the samples to be taken, tested and the notes provided
These are incorporated in the order I approved yesterday.
^ Haven't all the Russian Embassy staff been banished from the UK? Hard to visit the hospital in Salsibury from Moscow.
Yes, you really want GRU agents interfering with your investigation into, er, GRU agents eh?
You really are rather gormless OhOh.
First you insisted the British should involve the OPCW. Then when they did that, you claimed the OPCW can't be trusted.
You just can't keep track of all your bullshit, can you?
:)
"you really want MI5/6 agents interfering with your investigation into, er, MI5/6 agents eh?"Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda