📰 The most exciting thing to happen in Salisbury since Stonehenge was created

:newspaper: The most exciting thing to happen in Salisbury since Stonehenge was created
0

#1623

So until evidence is shown, don’t jump to conclusions? That would’ve been a great idea in March(+numerous over dates), but alas no one seemed to have considered such obvious thinking.
The whole Saudi story is being used for purpose, no more, as the history of them and the western governments allied to them proves.


#1624

From the evidence or from what we have been shown its more likely than anything else that the Russians were involved in the attempted killing Skripal more than any one else, the Saudi’s case against them is even more compelling but there is no proof.

You and me simply have to go on a belief.


#1625

We have been shown no evidence that any Russians were involved in poisoning, or even poisoned(and defiantly not a military grade nerve agent).
We do have evidence that we’ve been lied to about Russian involvement, so you’re going with no more than propaganda on that one.
My only care on the Saudi one, is that it shows up the complete hypocrisy of our government and media. I don’t think Erdoğan is the real manipulator here. He’s being directed for a bigger game.


#1626

Erdogan is playing it like a champ, he is milking it for everything and in political terms you can not blame him.

Nothing will change ie regimes unless the Americans want it so and no president whatever party would do that with the Saudis, who’d fill the vacuum?


#1627

He’s doing well out of it, but i think he’s being directed. Enemies on all sides if he’s not careful.

The figure head may change(7000 prince’s to choose from), but probably not the regime. America have put the idea about concerning taking over the oilfields by force(that’ll go well) to protect their interests.


#1628

Its a myth they need their oil, they don’t but they need a proxy Government in the Middle East and we all know it.


#1629

Sorry, just out of interest, what evidence do we have that we’ve been lied to about Russian involvement? There’s hearsay and conjecture, but is there any hard, irrefutable evidence?


#1630

Hansards is a good place to start(March), for irrefutable evidence. Then compare May’s statements to Basu’s, that happened within hours of each other(Sept). One of them must be lying.
That’s without bothering about Pfeffel or little gav and the accidents that follow them opening their mouths.


#1631

Control of the oil and protecting the illegal apartheid state is everything. There would be no Interest in the region otherwise.
Americas need for oil has not gone away, as the unforgivable acts towards Venezuela show.


#1632

What evidence though? There is no evidence, just inconsistencies between what various people have said. There is inconsistencies between what the Russian’s have said and their actual actions - does that mean that is irrefutable evidence?

By the way, you’re still yet to present any circumstantial evidence to say Djibouti is more likely to have done this than Russia. I answered your queries, be good if you could return the courtesy.


#1633

There is evidence of lying. If you can’t remember, reread this thread.
No, you didn’t. You came out with some rubbish about witnesses protection and ignored just about everything else.
Djibouti. Don’t you just love the way that name rolls of the tongue :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


#1634

Can you please point some of these out? All you seem to be doing is pointing to a large statement and saying that it isn’t true. I get you don’t like specifics, but come on.

I answered the questions you posed - it may not be the answers you wanted (but then unless I said the British did it it wouldn’t appease you) - then asked you if you had anything else. You didn’t reply.

You’re turning into Pap with the way you avoid things you cannot answer.

In relation to the Witness Protection thing, I suggest you read up on when it is used and the situations as you wouldn’t call it rubbish then. It seems to me your just don’t understand the process.

Why you won’t answer the Djibouti question is ridiculous - your avoidance of naming the reasons that you hold them above Russia as more likely to have done it is discrediting your already iffy reputation further.

It also seems to me you’re so desperate to see this country fall that you will make any excuse to not believe them. I guess that’s what a traitor would do.


#1635

May stating it could only have been Russia. That’s a lie and she knew it at the time.
Pfeffel in the radio interview stating PD categorically confirm. That lie got a response from PD.
I have mentioned both before.

No you didn’t. The rest of the paragraph doesn’t deserve a reply.

I’m not the one that can’t answer. Revisit previous posts.

Meaningless drivel. Everyone has disappeared, even Baileys kids. Think the Russians were after them?

Short memory?
Nothing more iffy than the blind faith needed to believe the fairytale.

Pick your dummy back up. You’re embarrassing yourself.


#1636

No dummy been spat here - I don’t feel embarrassed - pity for you maybe that you are struggling to answer questions or accept hypotheses that counter your argument.

Well, what more can I do - I’ve tried over and over to get you to ask me the questions directly you want answered. I have gone through and answered the question posed in the post you keep pointing me at. I asked you if there was anything more you want me to answer. Yet all I am getting is you saying I haven’t answered the questions. Just ask me the questions instead of rambling on incoherently about random things you’ve read on leftie websites.

So, do you think all those people have been killed by the British Government then? Is that what you are saying? If not, what do you think has happened to them? Bailey’s kids would have gone with him under a Witness Protection situation. Again, you’re not understanding the process.

I think what doesn’t seem to help with these conspiracy theories is the people that tend to believe them are, frankly, nuts. That means that they’re discredited before they can even take off.

The fact that you still, at the 9th time of asking, will not answer my queries about Djibouti only backs that up.


#1637

You’re the one believing an evidence free conspiracy, with an ever changing narrative.
On what evidence do you base your conviction that Russia have used a chemical weapon on British soil? onus probandi, remember.
Djibouti was an obvious joke. Could you not see that(just like the government one)? I answered that i had no idea, to your own question about “who done it” the other week, but you seem to have forgotten.
Still, it is a lovely name :grin:


#1638

I never said I had hard evidence, I have the same ‘circumstantial evidence’ (as you identified it) as I did before.

So, let’s try this again.

I asked you which country you thought is above Russia in the ‘whodunnit’ stakes, as you said Russia is not at the top of your list. Hence you must have someone else in mind that has more evidence (hard or circumstantial) currently lodged against it. So, who is it?


#1639

What ‘circumstantial evidence’ makes you so sure?
I’ll stick with not knowing(apart from the on record lies) and not casting evidence free blame(based on said liars word). Basu’s statement would back this position up


#1640

You’re not reading what’s been said.

The circumstantial evidence (as you agreed it is) makes me believe that out of all the likely countries, Russia are the most likely to have carried this out. I have outlined what this evidence is, over and over and over and over and over and over (repeat ad infinitum) again.

So, let’s try this again.

I asked you which country you thought is above Russia in the ‘whodunnit’ stakes, as you said Russia is not at the top of your list. Hence you must have someone else in mind that has more evidence (hard or circumstantial) currently lodged against it. So, who is it?


#1641

Where you been recently @Saint-or-sinner?


#1642

I’m still wondering what makes you so sure.
You don’t seem sure about what was used(it wasn’t a nerve agent).

What changed your mind between the above and the below?

Let me know when you’re sure.

And here, yet again, is what you claim to have addressed. Care to show me where?

Please go back and reread what i have said and stop doing the “traitor” bit, purely because I called an obvious fraud, just that. You know like the old saying “If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud.” Just like our msm then.
I won’t be going over the same shit again and again, so if you want to find out why it’s bollocks start at Freya Church’s statement(first person known to see them), what and who(very important) she discribes and you’ll see the problems build from there. Or just nod along to an unbelievable fairytale. Your choice.