Forum menu
Portion Down doesn’t have an offensive role, we don’t “do” chemical, biological or radiological.
Maybe not an an overtly offensive role, that statement is true. Yet to discover the true nature and make up of biological weapons you have to construct them.. this particular piece of research leads to developing biological weapons so you can understand the chemical make up of the agent.
And, who says Porton Down doesn’t have an “offensive” role ? A bunch of Lying PigFaced politicians?
Ye..yeah right.
Possessing certain types of substances, and actually using them as weapons are two completely different things.
Have a look at whats going on with Assads Russian-backed forces in Syria. You could hardly say with a straight face that Russia is averse to the use of chemical weapons.
Perhaps all those reports of chemical weapons attacks on civilian targets are all part of a western conspiracy too?
Nice to see Jezza return to writing tomorrows Daily Mail headlines for them though
As for Porton Down, it's old news but:
"
Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."
He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."
A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.
The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water."
The trials in Porton bit is a link BTW, I'll work out how to use the new forum properly one day.
How were things in the French Army 100 years ago Ed? I’d say that’s about as relevant.
Binners is right. If we wanted to use them as weapons, where’s the distribution and storage, where are the trained troops and delivery mechanisms? You can’t **** up with this stuff, if you don’t know what you’re doing you’ll kill more of your own side!
Both points interesting Ed, but I don't see the relevance?
Churchill's fondness for "any measures" is well known (if pretty much ignored when the lionising is going on). That doesn't suggest that we use such measures now, nor that Russia isn't behind the Salisbury attack.
The more recent trials at Porton Down also known about (a family member of mine was at the base at one point during the final trials), but still don't suggest in any way that the Russians are not behind the Salisbury attack.
What a pointless thing to post zulu, given that it self-evidently also supports the corollary.
The home office decide what they would prefer us to believe about sensitive events, and then years later we sometimes come to understand something approaching the truth of the matter.
Interesting comment, can you give one example, so that everyone can see the type of thing you're talking about?
Also, can you say what actually happened, if not what's being reported? I think that would help us all to understand how we've been misled by journalists, and why we should never trust them again.
Also, can you point us to some news outlets that are reliable, if not the ones we are using?
Britain, France and the uSA have also been supporting Assad with air strikes, Binners. It's just that they don't admit that bombing "jihadists" fighting against Assad is effectively supporting Assad even if Assad said he was agaisnt the British strikes (no doubt knowing that being critical of the British plans made the strikes more likely).
Also, can you point us to some news outlets that are reliable, if not the ones we are using?
Exaro. Oh, actually....
RT.com. Erm, on second thoughts...
The Daily Sport. They were right about Hitler being on the moon, after all. It's so obviously a cover up, it's what the government do.
Both Britian and France used chemical weapons in WWI having been first attacked by Germany with chemical weapons in breach of an existing treaty.
Churchill's attack on Russia was first use, first strike in breach of the treaty. There is a difference I think, especially as Russia had been an ally for the whole time it was involved in WWI.
Anyhow, we know Porton was testing chemical weapons on humans up to around 1989 and even if the human testing has stopped you'd have to be very naive to think there is no chemical weapons capability in the UK.
the strongest argument against this being a false flag attack is that our government just dont seem competent enough to pull it off.
The tories couldnt manage their party conference without it turning into the benny hill show
What exactly is your point Ed?
The Iraq WMD dossier was a work of fiction, but enabled the government to whip the House of Commons into a baying mob, abetted by the media, such that the few voices of reason were shouted down as apologists for Saddam Hussein.
The 14 people who died in suspicious circumstances. Should you actually take the time to read the series of Buzzfeed articles, not all of then were Russian. There's an American, and several british on the list, too. Including an MI6 agent and one of the blokes who discovered Litvenenko was poisoned with Polonium.
So no. Not 14 double agents.
Part 1.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/poison-in-the-system
John Pilger on propaganda, does that help understanding me, Kelvin. someone is telling porkies and we have no idea who:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/10/war-media-propaganda-iraq-lies
"You can't believe anything" is the tactics that Putin uses at home… Anyway, what, specifically, leads you to think that Salisbury wasn't down to the Russians, Ed? And no "whatabout Blair" response please.
Worth reading this twitter thread, rather than going down the "I don't understand this chemistry stuff, therefore I won't accept that Russia is involved" path…
https://twitter.com/deadlyvices/status/974171484787822592
Of course the Russians did this with the full intention of us tracing it back to them. Just like Litvinyenco. They are doing it as much to strengthen Putins domestic standing....looking tough to his own population in punishing 'traitors to the state' and riding rough shot over other nations....the long arm of Russia knows no boundaries and can reach its enemies wherever they may be in the world. That is why he used an agent that only Russia has. Putin knows that other nations, including the US (Obama doing nothing over the chemical attack red lines and Trumps apparent pro-Russia stance) and especially the EU, has no stomach for a fight so will ultimately roll over and do nothing. And Russia will just arrogantly deny everything and treat all other nations with disdain. If Russia was innocent, or even attempting to create the illusion that it is not guilty, then they would be taking a very different and more respectful tone.
I suspect Russia fully expected us to take some action but knew that without a full on multi national response then it will have limited impact so the ends justified the means. He gets maximum exposure to make him look strong along with his sarcastic arrogant responses, and suffers limited real impact so looks good in front of his people with up and coming elections. The timing of this attack is also no coincidence.
There is nothing sensible and grown up about Corbyn's position. He is desperately trying to divert attention away from the evidence...i.e. the Russian nerve agent used in the attack and our demands that Russia provide us with an explanation how it could have been used on an attack in the UK, to a completely different and un-related agenda like reduction in diplomatic staff around the world and Russian financial transactions in the UK trying to turn it around on the current government. A complete smoke screen and diversion tactics and pretty pathetic and amateur. Definitely way beneath the behaviour and competence of a possible future PM. Just a taste of what to expect if Corbyn was PM and faced with a real threat to our nation. Just true to form in protecting his Socialist dictator cronies around the world. We've seen it from him before. He's just looking to appease these people.
Britain, France and the uSA have also been supporting Assad with air strikes, Binners. It’s just that they don’t admit that bombing “jihadists” fighting against Assad is effectively supporting Assad even if Assad said he was agaisnt the British strikes (no doubt knowing that being critical of the British plans made the strikes more likely).
Well, they’re not using chemical weapons, have more accurate weapons and a somewhat more robust targeting policy.
Worth reading this twitter thread
I read that earlier, very good.
Anyhow, we know Porton was testing chemical weapons on humans up to around 1989 and even if the human testing has stopped you’d have to be very naive to think there is no chemical weapons capability in the UK.
Porton don’t deny having chemical weapon stocks, it’s on their website! As people are pointing out with increasing weariness, research stocks that’s not the same thing as having the capability and intent to use them as weapons.
Porton don’t deny having chemical weapon stocks, it’s on their website! As people are pointing out with increasing weariness, research stocks that’s not the same thing as having the capability and intent to use them as weapons.
But that's what they want you to think.
more robust targeting policy
Everyone they target must be a jihadist/terrorist because if they wern't western powers wouldn't be targeting them.
I can't really find much to care about the whole situation in all honesty. The guy was an enemy of Russia, we knew that when we took him in. I'm pretty sure we have topped more than a few of our own enemies in other countries ourselves. We opened up the UK to plenty of dodgy Russians and their dirty money, we sell weapons worldwide to horrible states which are then used against innocent civilians everyday. Shouting foul play about an assassination attempt seems more than a bit hollow.
"I cant see that the chemicals themselves could be ‘fingerprinted’ back to the source"
But IF Porton has managed to obtain samples of the susbstance, they ought to be able to detect the contaminants that indicate how it was made, which chemical synthetic route.
The original USSR labs were in Usbekistan or Kazakhstan, I think, & were decommissioned by the US after the Soviet break-up. They were reported to have identified the methods used to make the V-agents. I guess that's where Porton obtained their samples for comparison purposes, if they have any.
Alternatively, Porton might just have IDd the agent using normal analytical methods, and not have any of its own.
Britain, France and the uSA have also been supporting Assad with air strikes, Binners. It’s just that they don’t admit that bombing “jihadists” fighting against Assad is effectively supporting Assad even if Assad said he was agaisnt the British strikes (no doubt knowing that being critical of the British plans made the strikes more likely).
It seems like just about every country in the world has got a dog in that particular fight. Its an absolute mess.
However, only one group are using chemical weapons. Remind us who that is again.....
more robust targeting policy
Everyone they target must be a jihadist/terrorist because if they wern’t western powers wouldn’t be targeting them
Correct, well done.
So how should one pronounce Salisbury? I've always pronounced it Sauls-bury but all of the BBC presenters seem to pronounce it Sols-bury. It's driving me up the wall.
Harare.
The Syrians under Asssad's command, Binners.
The Syrians under Asssad’s command, Binners.
You're getting there. Who are armed and supported by.......?
You’re getting there. Who are armed and supported by…….?
[awaits a link showing in 1964 Britain sold them a Bren gun, some silly hats and some rubber bullets....]
But IF Porton has managed to obtain samples of the susbstance, they ought to be able to detect the contaminants that indicate how it was made, which chemical synthetic route.
This. I'm not sure what that twitter exchange is meant to prove other than Novichok is a 'class' of compounds and have different structures to VX. Sure, any analytical chemist worth his salt could characterise the compound and give its structure. But to understand how it was made, and from what materials and therefore by who - that relies on impurities and other signatures. Which is why if all we are saying is 'it's Novichok therefore it must be Russia' - I'm not 100% convinced by that evidence.
It kind of like looking at someone's hand and saying it has 4 fingers and thumb and that's enough to be able to determine whose hand it is. You don't know until you look at the fingerprints, or even better to look for the scar on the inside of the little finger that barely anyone else knows about.
NB - I'm not saying it isn't - as before I'm very much of the duck quacking mentality and it sure as hell looks like it could be, just that I'm not totally convinced - it might be Vlad hiding in the reeds with a duck decoy giggling at us.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its usually a duck
There is so much bollocks being spouted on this thread. We do analytical tests for leechables/impurities at my facility, we have acceptable amounts of leechables/impurities that I am pretty sure are specific to our facility.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i6/Tracing-Threat.html
Also, you don't just send samples of Novichok by post.
Idiots.
So how should one pronounce Salisbury? I’ve always pronounced it Sauls-bury but all of the BBC presenters seem to pronounce it Sols-bury. It’s driving me up the wall.
Sols-bury is correct imo. Do you also say Oarstralia?
Given the potential magnitude of the thread, this is meant as light hearted 'banter rather than actually giving a shit how you speak and weather or not you are correct and I don't know how to insert little winkey faces anymore......
the twitter thread was pointing out that it very likely could only have been made by a nation state with a sophisticated chemicals lab, (tho I think craig murray is torn between our own government & mossad)
I suppose that could be any country really, or maybe a well financed bond villain
It does preclude that it was brought in to the UK & mixed up here, which helps the authorities a bit in tracking it down how/where it entered, Im still not convinced that even trace impurities would be enough to say for sure which precursors/how it was made, let alone finger any 1 country
(edit looking at ryanwombles link it seems they could if they have samples of precursors that Russia might have used)
either way Putins surely not bovvered
I haven't seen anyone pick up on what @wobbliscott said, above, but he speaks good sense.
up until the bit about Corbyn, yes he was
Im still not convinced that even trace impurities would be enough to say for sure which precursors/how it was made, let alone finger any 1 country
I am, and I'm also fairly sure that SIS and Porton Down are likely to have a rather wonderful collection of various precursors from lots of different known Russian manufacturers.
If they have the precursors then yes you are right
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its usually a duck
But what have ducks got to hide that means they have to wear dog masks?
I agree. I have no idea of the chemical formula of the compound, but it’s likely to at the most only contain CHNOSP, which makes pinning the source of it very difficult even with isotopic techniques. Usually you’d need traces of REEs and Sr etc to really pick geological sources, and even then that would only tell you the source of the precursors, which might bear no relation to the place it was synthesised.
Closeish, you can look up the likely formula up in the Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents.
There is so much bollocks being spouted on this thread. We do analytical tests for leechables/impurities at my facility, we have acceptable amounts of leechables/impurities that I am pretty sure are specific to our facility.
Yes, this exactly. Which is why, ducks notwithstanding, I'm keen to see why the government is so certain it was Russia / getting someone like OPCW to confirm it.
And even then, if you wanted to play conspiracies as i said before,
-> IF <- I was a conspiracy theorist, for example, why are we still ‘in the process’ of sending a sample to the Chemical Weapons Inspectorate so they can analyse it, we’ve had it for a week now and it’s only Novichok on our say so. I mean, could the delay be that it isn’t? or that we know we made it and it doesn’t match the fingerprint? or that we’re frantically searching the cupboards of Porton Down / our allies equivalents to find a sample of it……. you could have a field day if you wanted.