Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4 Russian diplomat units expelled!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DinoDoc
    I don't know if he's obviously guilty but there is enough evidence to justify a trial.
    exactly.

    and sorry if i was a bit rude VJ, having one of those days i'm afraid.
    "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

    "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by The Vagabond
      They could conduct the trial in Russia. Yes, the Russian justice system is screwed and biased. I know, I know. Yet this would provide a tribune to the Brits to prove their case.
      Given the fact that the Russian gfovernment sought to hinder the UK investigation, why should their government consider a Russian court room a proper forum to hold a fair trial?
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DinoDoc
        Given the fact that the Russian gfovernment sought to hinder the UK investigation, why should their government consider a Russian court room a proper forum to hold a fair trial?
        "Sought to hinder" is just someone's interpretation. We can easily get stuck in mutually antagonistic interpretations. Let's just move on. It could be a proper forum to hold a fair presentation at least.
        Freedom is just unawareness of being manipulated.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by snoopy369
          Well, if they have a suspect, doesn't that imply there is a version of events?
          No, it implies there's enough evidence to try him, and let the court decide what version of events happened.

          Originally posted by VJ
          So why isn't there one?
          Originally posted by VJ
          Well excuse me, but if there's no official prosecution
          There is. Hence the formal extradition request.
          Smile
          For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
          But he would think of something

          "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker

          Comment


          • #35
            an interesting development.

            from the bbc

            A man has been questioned in connection with an alleged attempt to assassinate Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky.
            Scotland Yard said the man was arrested in central London on 21 June on suspicion of conspiracy to murder.

            He was released without charge two days later into the custody of the immigration service.

            Police released the information after the exiled Russian billionaire claimed UK intelligence officers had thwarted a plot to kill him.

            Mr Berezovsky, 61, a critic of the Russian government, told the BBC earlier on Wednesday that he had been warned about the alleged plot by sources in Russia and Scotland Yard.
            "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

            "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by snoopy369
              Presumably originally referring to verisimilitude, or having the appearance of truth.

              Does anyone really challenge that the russian (something) had litvinenko killed? Not necessarily the Russian Government, but it must have been a Russian something. Who else would have wanted him to be dead?

              I don't know anything about this prime suspect character, though, so no opinion on this specific case.
              Well, since our side claims that Berezovsky ordered that kill, i guess there is a consensus on both sides that Russians wanted him to be dead

              Also, who was Litvinenko? He was some noname traitor, noone ever heard about him before he was poisoned. If you'll make a virtual list of "enemies of the state", he probably shoudn't have made it there at all. There are many, many better targets than him in London. So, it's obvious that if Russian government really decided to kill someone in Britain, it shouldn't have been Litvinenko. And who uses flashy ways to kill (especially like polonium that can be traced with ease, is very expensive compared to conventional methods and is very hard to obtain in required quantities) against noname targets residing in developed countries, anyway? Certainly, not any secret services. I'm not really in that subject but i don't remember any case when some secret service killed someone that way. So, i don't really believe these "traces leading to Russia" either, it sounds more like another retarded hollywood film plot to me. No secret service worth a damn will do something like that, and Russia has one of the best secret services in the world for some time. Maybe you do believe in hollywood film plots after you watched them so many times, but i certainly don't.


              ****

              And the article itself is very fun as well

              Speaking on a visit to Berlin, he said he wanted good relations with Russia but also said people would understand that when a prosecuting authority made it clear what was in the interests of justice and there was no co-operation, "then action has to be taken."

              Of course, that hypocrite forgets that Russian Federation requests extradition of 21 people (including terrorists and proven criminals like Berezovsky) and Britain says "no" because of some far-fetched reason. Of course, now when Britain wants an extradition, russian constitution isn't a good enough reason to deny extradition (maybe Britain thinks that we should change our constitution just so to appeal to them?).

              But he said it was necessary to send a "clear and proportionate signal" to Russia, about the seriousness with which Britain regarded the matter.
              I like that one - "proportionate". I think so to make our signal "proportionate", we must expel 84 Britain diplomats because we want 21 people to be extradicted from Britain. That makes the same "proportionate" ratio of 4 diplomats per extradition
              Knowledge is Power

              Comment


              • #37
                Instead

                Russia has settled on expelling 4 UK diplomats
                “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

                ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

                Comment

                Working...
                X