Talk for Article "Russia, Britain, and the Chemical Weapons Convention"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    What about the chain of evidence? There is no credible evidence that the samples of a substance found to be a “chemical weapon” actually was lawfully obtained from the scene of the crime or the victims and properly processed. There is no evidence that Russia has such a weapon other than the British assertions. So its highly likely that the British simply planted the evidence they wanted to find.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I am not sure about the „strong support from the OPCW“ the „British prime minister Theresa May has already received“. What is the original source? I have found this expression in the main press, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/13/russian-spy-attack-trump-supports-uk-all-the-way. It sounds to me as if „strong“ is not an objective statement but just as the press sees it (biased).
    I suggested (it’s still pending) an OPCW statement from an original source:
    In his report of the Eighty-Seventh Session the OPCW Executive Council stated that he „was informed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that a chemical weapon was used in an incident in Salisbury on 4 March 2018“. He „expressed grave concern about the use of any chemical weapon, anywhere“ and „decided to remain seized of the matter.“
    According to this statement, OPCW seems to take a neutral stance.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      We’ll get that original source. Thank you. However, thinking about this it is important I think to take some care not to be sucked into a deliberately created climate of doubt. However, we will try to make sure we identify assertions [such as the strong claim from the British foreign secretary that Putin was behind the attack]. Let’s also remember these people are speaking with the resources of government behind them and we are mere reporters (and citizens).

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    It is worth mentioning (1) the general lack of evidence being given by any agency about this story, and (2) the fact that there is credible doubt about the British intelligence’s version of the story, for example from a former ambassador to Uzbekistan (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/), which is also mentioned here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/15/uks-claims-questioned-doubts-emerge-about-source-of-salisburys-novichok

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Just like fake news ,repeat an unsupported allegation often enough and people will believe it as truth. Shame on you.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us