Rayvin

Enlighten me?

When did this board get so sensitive?

What do you mean by steps? The ones taken to confirm that the stuff came from Russia? I'm fairly sure that we won't yet have any definitive proof of this tbh. And tbh, I suspect that it has come from Russia - even though I still don't understand why a failed assassination attempt that causes an international custerfuck before they host a world cup, using a chemical that they know will be traced back to them, and while they are running an election, is in any way a desirable outcome for them.

Yep. Certainly there's enough doubt in there to make it worth having someone in parliament actually ask that due process is followed anyway. And I am yet to see any evidence that has been circulated to the public on why there is irrefutable proof that this came from Russia, especially since that article notes that the last time the nerve agent was used, it was because samples had been stolen from a lab It's as if all of a sudden, on this issue, we are supposed to trust the Tories. And I'm ready to do so, once the international body in charge of assessing this stuff agrees with them.

My understanding is that Huddersfields preferred style is aggressive and attacking. If so, we should beat them fairly comfortably.

Questions being raised about how likely Russia is to be behind the attack. Credible sounding people as well, like the guy involved in site visits to decommission the thing in the first place, and other chemwep experts. So clearly there are some people besides Corbyn who think that this isn't yet fully conclusive. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/15/uks-claims-questioned-doubts-emerge-about-source-of-salisburys-novichok

BF1 I played on PS4 - was enjoyable enough but idk, I prefer my shooters to be story driven campaigns, not just large open ended shoot ups. PUBG I just don't get the long term appeal of, as mentioned elsewhere. Same problem as BF1 for me. Did play a few rounds of it though, and I guess it was good fun while it lasted. Not sure I see it as a shooter though, more a survival game with shooting in it. CS:GO I haven't played but seems to have a huge following and many of the serious gamers who play RL also seem to play this. Overwatch I just can't get into. I don't understand the appeal on any level, weirdly Destiny 2 is an option on PC now as well btw.

I wonder what the odds on that last bit would be.

Wow! Nice one Love the soundtrack too...

She's probably right though. I am curious actually, what it is that all these MPs are looking for us to do. We are a nothing country now. Russia could have dropped a bomb in central London and we still probably wouldnt go to war over it.

Yes, I understood that the first time you said it.

In terms of politics, Corbyn is an utter fuckwit who is generally a PR nightmare, and doesn't appear to have a solid grasp of swift decision making outside of his key principles, and cannot command respect throughout his party. Now that we've established what I think about Corbyn as a politician, I can say with cards on the table that I don't see what it is that he has done wrong here.

Ok, great. So presumably she told him this in response, and everyone just kinda wondered why he bothered asking when he already knew. Or the other scenario, everyone lost their shit because a man suggested we comply with our international obligations. Presumably he had some reason to ask her again, but whether it was a good one or not, it's hardly "shameful" or whatever he's being accused of. Hardly "pro-Russia" either. "Pro-international law" maybe.

Ah ok - have I missed the bit where the relevant international body has received the samples, considered the evidence, drawn it's conclusions, and has presented its findings to the UN? Because if I have missed that, then fair enough.

Corbyn said this: He said: “If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russianegligently lost control of a military-grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies?” Corbyn then asked: “How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack, to run its own tests?” " "

If states-parties are found to have engaged in prohibited actions that could result in “serious damage” to the convention, the OPCW could recommend collective punitive measures to other states-parties. In cases of “particular gravity,” the OPCW could bring the issue before the UN Security Council and General Assembly. States-parties must take measures to address questions raised about their compliance with the CWC. If they do not, the OPCW may, inter alia, restrict or suspend their CWC-related rights and privileges (such as voting and trade rights). Notice how the international body is supposed to be the one that handles this. So again, why have we jumped the gun?

The Chemical Weapons Convention, apparently. We are supposed to send the sample to the OPCW.

How does this help him in his already bought and paid for domestic election?

So fucking what? We signed up to international agreements for the regulation of this sort of thing. How is it that these agreements are things we can ignore, but for other countries we expect them to comply? We sign up to these things to protect an admittedly largely illusory notion of international accountability. Especially when we know the US is effectively being run by a guy bought and paid for by the guy who has allegedly just attacked us, and the EU is pissed as hell at us, you would think complying with legally agreed frameworks would be advantageous. Where do you think this will end up, out of interest? My guess is it rumbles on for a while as the list of non-damaging diplomatic actions is exhausted, and then gets forgotten - and the Tories have jumped the gun purely because actually, they don't consider it to be a very big a deal... and they may as well make some political capital out of it.

So why expel their diplomats beforehand?

Well, fair enough. I expect that to be the first thing on May's list then, given how 'outrageous' this is.

It sounds like the standard procedure is to present evidence to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Something we apparently signed up to. Why aren't we doing that? Presumably, just so the Tories can look strong. This is a farce being played out for political points. It's well conceived on that basis, but I have no fucking time for it personally. We can't do anything to Russia of any significance, and in a few weeks it'll all be forgotten about unless the Tories actually declare war.

If it is, why aren't we following the standard procedure? And how do we even know that it is...?

So why not do that? I mean look, we're going to get into a game of tit for tat bullshit now - we'll expel their diplomats, they'll take ours out back and have them shot, we'll complain to the EU for greater sanctions, they'll tell the EU that if this happens, the oil is going to be cut off, and then we'll eventually we'll talk about freezing their assets, and then the Tories will complain that this will financially hurt the Tori--I mean the City of London.

Also, can someone explain to me why the notion that we should be following the process that we signed up to with whichever treaty it is that regulates this stuff, shouldn't be followed in this case? That seems to be the crux of what Corbyn is saying, and honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why we wouldn't do this.