Where did I say I believed May?
Meeting skripal I reckon.
That’s 3 really.
Convenient timing as well, as i’m sure everyone knows all about toxic dagger. A real press would have pointed that out straight away.
And possibly administered a poison at the same time, although not Novichok.
In life you have to come to and form conclusion to what you have been shown, how sure am I my daughter is my daughter?
Believe and trust.
So by that I have formed that the Russians from what I have seen are more likely to have committed this than anyone else.
This really isn’t difficult.
The thing is, how would the Government agencies have known the Russians and the Skripal’s movements, and how were they able to plan that well.
Why would the Russian intelligence service meet with Skripal with his daughter there?
That is just grasping at straws.
Possibly yes. Or maybe a standard poisoning wasn’t dramatic enough.
Edit. Just seen your post above
Skripal was working for British intel?
May said(officially) just a couple of days after, that it could only have been Russia.
You believe that, or not?
Apologies if i’m wrong, but i don’t remember you ever considering it might have been anyone but Russia, so you agree with May’s statement to parliament and believe it to be true?
Still struggling to answer a simple question.
Shame, but not unexpected.
Hang on, there are two things here.
- I believe everything that May said about that day.
- I agree with May that Russia did it.
Number 2 please.
I think he has explained that.
The most likely explanation, due to Russian GU agents being in the area, is that they did it.
There is also a probability (although smaller) that it was done by someone else.
There is also more circumstantial evidence that the Russians did it than evidence against them doing it.
I’m pretty sure that’s what Barry means (don’t mean to answer for you here Barry).
Holy fuck over 80 posts since I looked at the thread earlier this morning- you have been busy boys.
Are any of you at work today?
Yep! Day work. Fuck 'em.
We know that they were GU? How.
Why smaller? History would suggest the opposite.
Circumstantial, such as? Two Russians were in a city, so that’s good enough.
I notice you drop circumstantial for Russia. Why?
A lie to parliament and the mouth piece of the Atlantic Council, that has been exposed as a liar on every major thing he’s covered. Anything more convincing, circumstantial or real?
Afraid of snow?
World famous spire?
False passports that our lot gave visa’s for and that’s only if you’re willing to take bellendcats word for it. I’m not.
This is another example of twisting the truth. Thet had trainers on Saturday and if you ask anyone from places that get serious winters, ours is considered wet and horrible, with a wind that gets to your bones.
Ever heard of British people going abroad, then travelling around looking at historic buildings?
Blind faith. Does it not bother you, that the whole of our ‘free’ press, can’t raise a single question, about all the glaring inconsistencies, or the fact that they have taken the widely debunked bellendcats word as gospel, without checking?
What name would you give to a country that has a press like that?