Liveleak Forums

Liveleak Forums (http://forums.liveleak.com/index.php)
-   Europe (http://forums.liveleak.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   The Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam (http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread.php?t=120791)

beuwolf88 03-16-2018 06:54 AM

The Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam
 
As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.

"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016) Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry

Yet now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to identify a substance which its only biological weapons research centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse, it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot be true.

The world’s international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black’s opinion. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In 2013 this was the report of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the UK representative:

[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013)
OPCW: Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013

Indeed the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of “novichoks” that it decided – with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their alleged precursors to its banned list. In short, the scientific community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on “novichoks” but doubts he succeeded.

Given that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of “Novichoks” is dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it is extremely important the UK presents that sample to the OPCW. Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample to OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury material for international analysis.

Yet Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW.

Why?

A second part of May’s accusation is that “Novichoks” could only be made in certain military installations. But that is also demonstrably untrue. If they exist at all, Novichoks were allegedly designed to be able to be made at bench level in any commercial chemical facility – that was a major point of them. The only real evidence for the existence of Novichoks was the testimony of the ex-Soviet scientist Mizayanov. And this is what Mirzayanov actually wrote.

One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.
Vil S. Mirzayanov, “Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons Complex: An Insider’s View,” in Amy E. Smithson, Dr. Vil S. Mirzayanov, Gen Roland Lajoie, and Michael Krepon, Chemical Weapons Disarmament in Russia: Problems and Prospects, Stimson Report No. 17, October 1995, p. 21.

It is a scientific impossibility for Porton Down to have been able to test for Russian novichoks if they have never possessed a Russian sample to compare them to. They can analyse a sample as conforming to a Mirzayanov formula, but as he published those to the world twenty years ago, that is no proof of Russian origin. If Porton Down can synthesise it, so can many others, not just the Russians.

And finally – Mirzayanov is an Uzbek name and the novichok programme, assuming it existed, was in the Soviet Union but far away from modern Russia, at Nukus in modern Uzbekistan. I have visited the Nukus chemical weapons site myself. It was dismantled and made safe and all the stocks destroyed and the equipment removed by the American government, as I recall finishing while I was Ambassador there. There has in fact never been any evidence that any “novichok” ever existed in Russia itself.

To summarise:

1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.
5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...raqi-wmd-scam/

Aquina1300 03-16-2018 07:34 AM

According to what I've read, Putin wants the UK to give a sample of Novichok 5 to Russia because then the Russians will be might be able to identify how the UK got a sample.

Putin messed up on this one.

http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread.php?t=120789

beuwolf88 03-16-2018 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquina1300 (Post 2303801)
According to what I've read, Putin wants the UK to give a sample of Novichok 5 to Russia because then the Russians will be might be able to identify how the UK got a sample.

Putin messed up on this one.

http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread.php?t=120789

Still doesn't answer how the UK knows it is Novichok 5 if they didn't have a sample and also if they did they were required to notify the chemical weapons monitors that the did under international agreements which they certainly did not.

Also, why after all these years do we have a purported chemical weapons attack in Syria and a dissent killed in the UK after living there for many years. He would be killed anytime but why right now and not 5 years ago?

snipershot 03-16-2018 12:59 PM

Our politicians, ready to throw the country under the bus over two, not dead yet russians.

Hate to agree with corbyn, but get your facts in a row BEFORE you accuse.

Could have been anyone at this point. Those chemical weapons can be made anywhere on the planet.

Its almost as if our intelligence agencies are cleaner than clean. They are not.

Politicians are just using this as a distraction from other things. Manufactured fake outrage.

Aquina1300 03-16-2018 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snipershot (Post 2303809)
Our politicians, ready to throw the country under the bus over two, not dead yet russians.

Hate to agree with corbyn, but get your facts in a row BEFORE you accuse.

Could have been anyone at this point. Those chemical weapons can be made anywhere on the planet.

Its almost as if our intelligence agencies are cleaner than clean. They are not.

Politicians are just using this as a distraction from other things. Manufactured fake outrage.

yeah, the "act of war" rhetoric is a bit over the top. No one is going to war over this.

moefugger 03-17-2018 03:40 PM

Who the fuck knows.
Cannot tell shit from the news.

radgy 03-17-2018 03:52 PM

So we're they trump involved dead Russians or Democrat involved dead Russians that is the question

DanielDefense 03-17-2018 04:56 PM

It wasn't Russia, they're not amateurs in killing people...someone is trying to frame them.

Just use common sense from how hits are carried out in the US when they don't want it traced back to them. You use outside groups, people of a different race or out of state etc with no traceable link back to you.

Whoever carried out that hit is redirecting the attention to Russia because it's trendy, no Country would use it's own ammo or products if it doesn't want it traced back.

Aquina1300 03-17-2018 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielDefense (Post 2303931)
It wasn't Russia, they're not amateurs in killing people...someone is trying to frame them.

Just use common sense from how hits are carried out in the US when they don't want it traced back to them. You use outside groups, people of a different race or out of state etc with no traceable link back to you.

Whoever carried out that hit is redirecting the attention to Russia because it's trendy, no Country would use it's own ammo or products if it doesn't want it traced back.

You mean the same way Clinton and Obama use MS-13 and Hezbollah?

DanielDefense 03-17-2018 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquina1300 (Post 2303935)
You mean the same way Clinton and Obama use MS-13 and Hezbollah?

Yep, plus they let them deal drugs impeding DEA enforcement on them


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 PM.