That Corbyn fella...

At odds with them by doing the same as them?

Corbyn’s spokesman clarifies he does not believe there is proof yet that Russia is responsible for #Salisbury - and MI5/MI6 may be wrong: “There is a history between WMDs and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly”.

hmmmm

Corbyn’s spokesman clarifies he does not believe there is proof yet that Russia is responsible

That's one thing he has in common with Donald Trump.

My first thoughts were "Not saying it's Russia, but..."

But the chemicals could have been stolen without Putin knowing about this, it could have been an unapproved killing... until there is much better proof it is still conjecture.

Demanding an answer NOW where even the UN guidelines give the accused more time to respond may backfire pretty badly.

Corbyn has been pretty on the money so far when he's not wanted to go rushing in. Even if/when it is proven to be Russia, it's surely best to have that proof first rather than being all Billy big balls just to look strong and stable.

^ Russian bot.

"Russia meddling with our democracy" has now become the go-to deflection for any criticism of our failed political and economic models. Good to see Corbyn not breathlessly running into the breach behind our government of unaccountable fuckwits.

Whatever your views on Russia and our own government, the use of a nerve agent to attack British residents should be condemned without hesitation.

At least Corbyn has got Paul Joseph Watson on his side...

1 Attachment

And good old Ken has been on Russia Today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf4qOvLBNGU

Totally, it's the super quick demands without proof from MayBot that irk me a bit.

True, we should take a leaf out of Trump's book and wait for the facts.

What's your position exactly?

For the record, I'm not sure what mine is, but it's certainly not something that would lead me to conflate post-Iraq scepticism into Trump and Putin supporting derision.

A healthy scepticism is fine, it's more that some criticised Trump for saying this yesterday

as soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.

as not being strong enough on Russia

Fair enough. But Corbyn, as far as I understand, supported May's response.

And good old Ken has been on Russia Today.

Yeah thanks Ken

I'm not sure what mine is

Me neither. I also think there's a pretty low probability that anyone posting here has enough information to form a credible opinion on JCs position.

Agreed. It's not stopping people though. And I'm never sure if it's from a gut reaction to a truly troubling situation (in which case discussion is probably worthwhile), blind nationalism, or the chance to try and score cheap political points.

Isn’t that the problem though, Corbyn (but mainly his advisors) have chosen to score cheap political points rather than condemn it. We don’t know who in Russia authorised this act, but it’s clear that the substance used was produced by the Russian authorities.

Also unconscious bias. But the political point scoring a lot. You can tell by how hard people are trying to differentiate similar positions (in JC supporting May's response).

My info is from this account of what his press secretary said; http://www.entornointeligente.com/articulo/4005893/INGLES-Corbyn-challenges-Mays-evidence-of-Russian-lsquo;culpabilityrsquo;-in-exspy-poisoning-14032018
... because I struggled to find anything more detailed or showing the og text. If anyone has anything better I'd appreciate it.

Imo, if accurate, it seems like a pretty odd stance to take. Surely this is basic stuff; (1) thoughts and prayers / shocked and appalled, (2) waiting for all the information, (3) swift response once we have the answers.

Happy to be corrected, but don't most pundits hold the view that Putin has successfully used a mix of paramilitaries, mafia, and FSB to carry out attacks? Seems so odd to already be putting out excuses which spread doubt and aren't necessarily separate from the state.

Not sure this is a defense. Putin would have to explain how a military grade toxin was stolen or used without approval. If the military or intelligence service can use these weapons without approval that is even worse. Also, if a response always requires 100% public proof in the field of intelligence/counter-intelligence it would give adversary countries a lot of room.

That's not how I've read it. So maybe (probably) that's my bias! However, I've seen calls for unequivocal condemnation (of Russia rather than the attack) which, despite me suspecting them being directed to the right source, I'd be hesitant to give.

Im not thinking about the info put out by labour or the government, more the info/analysis they are privi to. Its not inconceivable that the government knows who did what and why and how it is or is not linked to putin.

Fair enough, I read your post differently.

Although to point out the obvious, this the 'SS' in the forum's name doesn't stand for Secret Services ;)