UPDATE Perhaps you will forgive me for pointing out that the argument in the legal opinion by Professor Dapo Akande of Oxford University, published today by the Labour Party, is identical in every respect and in detail to the analysis I published yesterday. So for all the trolls who claimed I do not know international law…
I have published Prof Akande’s summary at the end of this post.
Theresa May has issued a long legal justification for UK participation in an attack on a sovereign state. This is so flawed as to be totally worthless. It specifically claims as customary international law practices which are rejected by a large majority of states and therefore cannot be customary international law. It is therefore secondary and of no consequence that the facts and interpretations the argument cites in this particular case are erroneous, but it so happens they are indeed absolutely erroneous.
Let me put before you the government’s legal case in full:
1.This is the Government’s position on the legality of UK military action to alleviate the extreme humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their further use, following the chemical weapons attack in Douma on 7 April 2018.
2.The Syrian regime has been killing its own people for seven years. Its use of chemical weapons, which has exacerbated the human suffering, is a serious crime of international concern, as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity.
3.The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:
(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).
4.The UK considers that military action met the requirements of humanitarian intervention in the circumstances of the present case:
(i) The Syrian regime has been using chemical weapons since 2013. The attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013 left over 800 people dead. The Syrian regime failed to implement its commitment in 2013 to ensure the destruction of its chemical weapons capability. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017 killed approximately 80 people and left hundreds more injured. The recent attack in Douma has killed up to 75 people, and injured over 500 people. Over 400,000 people have now died over the course of the conflict in Syria, the vast majority civilians. Over half of the Syrian population has been displaced, with over 13 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. The repeated, lethal use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity. On the basis of what we know about the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons to date, it was highly likely that the regime would seek to use chemical weapons again, leading to further suffering and loss of civilian life as well as the continued displacement of the civilian population.
(ii) Actions by the UK and its international partners to alleviate the humanitarian suffering caused by the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime at the UN Security Council have been repeatedly blocked by the regime’s and its allies’ disregard for international norms, including the international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. This last week, Russia vetoed yet another resolution in the Security Council, thwarting the establishment of an impartial investigative mechanism. Since 2013, neither diplomatic action, tough sanctions, nor the US strikes against the Shayrat airbase in April 2017 have sufficiently degraded Syrian chemical weapons capability or deterred the Syrian regime from causing extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale through its persistent use of chemical weapons. There was no practicable alternative to the truly exceptional use of force to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their further use by the Syrian regime in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering.
(iii) In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike carefully considered, specifically identified targets in order effectively to alleviate humanitarian distress by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring further chemical weapons attacks was necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable. Such an intervention was directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and the action was the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.
14 April 2018
The first thing to note is that this “legal argument” cites no authority. It does not quote the UN Charter, any Security Council Resolution or any international treaty or agreement of any kind which justifies this action. This is because there is absolutely nothing which can be quoted – all the relevant texts say that an attack on another state is illegal without authorisation of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Nor does the government quote any judgement of the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court or any other international legal authority. This is important because rather than any treatment, the government makes a specific claim its actions are justified by customary international law, which means accepted state practice. But the existence of such state practice is usually proven through existing court judgements, and there are no judgements that endorse the approach taken by the government in its argument.
The three “tests” set out under para 3 as to what is permitted under international law are not in fact a statement of anything other than the UK’s own position. These “tests” are specifically quoted by Ola Engdahl in Bailliet and Larsen (ed) “Promoting Peace Through International Law” (Oxford University Press 2015). Engdahl notes:
The UK position, that it is permitted to take coercive action under a doctrine of humanitarian intervention when certain conditions are met, is a minority view and does not reflect lex data on the prohibition of the use of force in international relations as expressed in article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
That is undeniably true, and as it is equally undeniably true that a minority view cannot be customary international law, the British government position is utterly devoid of merit.
The Government argument is a classic statement of the doctrine of “liberal intervention”, which is of course the mantra adopted by neo-conservatives over the last 30 years to justify resource grabs. It is not in any way accepted as customary international law. It is a doctrine opposed by a very large number of states, and certainly by the great majority of African, South American and Asian states. (African states have occasionally advocated the idea that UN Security Council authorisation may be replaced by the endorsement of a UN recognised regional authority such as ECOWAS or the African Union. This was the Nigerian position over Liberia 20 years ago. The Security Council authorised ECOWAS action anyway, so no discord arose. The current Nigerian government does not support intervention without security council authorisation).
The examples of “liberal intervention” most commonly used by its advocates are Sierra Leone and Libya. My book “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo” details my experiences as UK Representative at the Sierra Leone peace talks, and I hope will convince you that the accepted story of that war is a lie. Libya too has been a disaster, and it is not a precedent for the government’s legal argument as the western forces employed were operating under cover of a UN Security Council Resolution authorising force, albeit only to enforce a no fly zone.
In fact, if the British government were to offer examples of state practice to attempt to prove that the doctrine it outlines is indeed customary international law, the most appropriate recent examples are Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Georgia. I oppose those Russian interventions as I oppose the UK/US/French actions now. It is not a question of “sides” it is a question of the illegality of military action against other states.
The rest of the government’s argument is entirely hypothetical, because as the liberal intervention doctrine is not customary international law these arguments cannot justify intervention.
But the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against Douma is non-existent, and the OPCW did not conclude that the Assad government was responsible for the attack on Khan Sheikhoun. There is no evidence whatsoever that military action was urgently required to avert another such “immediate” attack. Nor is it true that the UK’s analysis of the situation is “generally accepted” by the international community, as witness China and Russia voting together in the Security Council yesterday to condemn the attack.
So the British government sets up its own “three tests” which have no legal standing and are entirely a British concoction, yet still manages to fail them.
Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, Oxford University, gave this opinion for the Labour Party…
In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:
1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.
2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.
3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.
4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action.
Here is the semi-official Chinese stance on this matter: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1097887.shtml
I wonder – I hope – that they are merely keeping their tinder dry in anticipation of The Main Event?
3.The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:
(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
And what we have here is a single video on social media, which most competent viewers say is categorically not footage of the aftermath of a chemical attack. There is no humanitarian distress, extreme or otherwise, beyond that which is inevitable in the midst of a civil war. It is not on a large scale. Missiles are not relief.
OK, so on multiple fronts, that condition is not remotely met.
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
Such as OPCW weapons inspectors?
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).
I really struggle to see how launching a hundred cruise missiles at a country can ever be necessary or proportionate to the relief of human suffering, any more than mass rape is a valid means of preserving virginity.
They are giving other countries a blueprint to do the saMe – ie the splitting of Kosovo from Serbia; another action by the western countries – is used by Russia in relation to Crimea
James
Yugoslavia is another brutal war crime and mass murder based on lies.
More ‘bombing back to th stoneage’ this time of Serb christians on behalf of the terrorist islamic fundamentalists – the KLA – precursors of Al Qaeda, ISIS and from exactly the same stable.
The ICTY has found Slobodan Milosevich an innocent man – a bit late as they almost certainly murdered him in his prison cell.
They have denounced as lies the mass graves and ethnic cleansing.
The only ethnic cleansing was some 700,000 Serbs driven penniless from their lands in Kosovo,- part of Sebia for centuries – from the Krajina with 20,000 dead at the hands of the Croats and from Bosnia.
This was barely reported in the British MSM.
Here is John Pilger writing about it.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
Well, Slobodan Milosevic is not an innocent man, it is not found not guilty by ICTY, but he died before any conviction. Just google Vukovar, Dubrovnik, Srebrenica etc… The fact is that he started military campaigns in Croatia and Bosnia and wanted to create ethnically clean state outside of present borders.
However, I also disagree on bombing Yugoslavia and tear it apart by taking Kosovo.
Here is John Pilger.
One of the most honest and highly respected journalists to day.
I prefer his opinion to yours.
johnpilger.com/articles/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media
The attack on Yugoslavia was the main handiwork of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton as his runner up.
The false flag was Racak.
Done by the CIA and islamic terrorists and now openly exposed.
Blair is a war criminal – many times over.
The illegal attack on Serbia based on outright lies to most stunning ‘success’.
Well, I said I don’t agree with bombing Yugoslavia and taking it apart.
But I am Croat and was on the other side of Slobodan Milosevic guns and know quite well who he was. I don’t have to read John Pilger for that.
A Croat – you will be familiar then with Jasenovac.
How many Serbs were murdered?
around 80000 during WWII, Serbs, Jews, Croats who fought Nazis and gypsies.
And we know how Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic were. The same as Milosevic. Your Operation Storm in the Krajina was textbook ethnic cleansing. As a result, Serbs are the largest refugee population in Europe. When in a glass house don’t throw stones. Croatian nationalism was just as nasty and violent as Serbian. Your country is a NATO member like all the other Eastern European clowns, so you can supply cannon fodder to the criminal American wars. Croatia, like all periphery clowns, is an economic, scientific, and industrial wasteland now, but hey, you can deploy to Afpak as the yanks’ errand boy. And the rest can emigrate to Western Europe. I’m Hungarian, so I know the sad and pathetic reality of the periphery.
Well, we defended our country, sorry about that. If you mean Operation Storm, Serbs were invited to stay but they received order from their own leadership to leave. it is well know fact, also confirmed by ICTY, also you can find it in multiple Serbian documentaries if you don’t believe me. In the same time they were offered multiple times to accept Croatia within borders and they refused, including Z4 proposal which would guarantee them autonomy. They choose not to. I am actually they sorry they did not stay, but prevailing Serbian politics in that period has been very aggressive toward everybody around them.
His Dutch lawer was quite clear about it Milosevic was murdered in his Scheveningen jail.
I don’t know weather this is truth but it looks very convenient as investigation would go toward Serbian role in wars during 90s as it is quite obvious that he was brain behind wars providing military and logistic support. Looking form this point I think it would not be good to go in this direction and I hope relationships will normalize.
Craig, Almost everything you write is true, and much the same applies to John Ward of The Slog, but what do we do about it, when even Jeremy Corbyn, only hints at the truth, when confronted by the pigs. At least he had the courage to turn up at the trough. He should go very much further and call these evil lying morons out, for what they actually are.
Just tell the truth, as best as you know it, and perhaps with a little bit of panache, mixed with sarcasm and disdain. Some young real journalists can do it extremely well. Try and be as good as Eva Bartlett. They throw everything they have got at her in a live TV interview, and she is so fast, and so bright, she chucks all the rocks back at them with facts from the ground, and makes them look like the morons they are. “Were you are any of The Mainstream Media there? I was, and I reported everything that I saw.”
“THE SUNDAY ESSAY: 12 reasons to support the concept of Britain as a neo-totalitarian State with no right to be bombing Syria”
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/the-sunday-essay-12-reasons-to-support-the-concept-of-britain-as-a-neo-totalitarian-state-with-no-right-to-be-bombing-syria/
Tony
Intersting stuff. Thanks.
Tony, I too am somewhat as despondent as you seem to be about redressing the situation. There are things we could do but it cannot be denied that the British people are too controlled by the mass media in this country and don’t seem to be motivated by wanting to research or analyse further on these issues. However, I am heartened by what appears to be, at least online, massive opposition to the strikes in Syria and to the Skripal spy poisoning case. Censorship is definitely in operation because I tried to post the text someone posted here that was Sergei Lavrov’s reportage of the Swiss lab report. It still hasn’t been posted. Look what happened on Sky News when the former head of our Armed Forces went off message and exonerated Assad, he got cut off with the interviewer seemingly completely stunned by his responses. To all intents and purposes, the foundations of Dictatorship and Totalitarianism are becoming evident in this country. Thank God therefore, for the internet where deep research, fact finding and sharing can go on. The problem we have of course, is that we seem to be afflicted by there not being quite a few Heads of States around the world who seem to have less intelligence between them than the bloggers online. They don’t seem to be asking any questions, questioning anything or condemning the USA whereas the bloggers online seem to be the ones that know and understand the real truth. Added to which, Nikki Haley has given a really good example, in a statement to the UN, as to how Russia are frustrating key USA interests around the world – it is so transparent her speech that no-one can be left in any doubt as to why this anti-Russian hysteria and demonization is going on – it’s the to Jerre in her speech, I don’t think she really thought about what she was saying. We have a problem with the UN now though because, if you remember some months ago, when Trump announced he was moving the USA embassy to Jerusalem and the majority of countries in the UN roundly condemned this, Nikki Haley issued threats to what I am going to describe as ‘2nd world countries’ that, if they voted against the USA then the USA would withdraw in its entirety, all their funding, hence you are now finding all these abstentions in the UN. I do believe, if the nation was called to action, there are things we could do if we acted in a majority, for example, the majority refusing to by any of the main newspapers and tabloid filth in this country. An online forum needs to be organised by an organisation or something that can, through social media and the internet, organise and fund mass protests on the streets of the UK at the Government’s doorsteps. Corbyn is not in a position to do much more than he is doing at the moment. I hope though, he is able to make a damning, passionate, from the heart speech about the lack of democracy in this country, the government propaganda machine that is the mass media, the suppression of the truth, the dismissal and contempt for the rule of law and international law and above all, expose the lies and inconsistencies as told by this Govt. He needs a rabble rousing speech to organise the nation behind him – whether as the leader of the opposition he is allowed to do this I don’t know, but I hope he does it. Damn the media and damn the lily livered labour backbenchers who are Blairites. I have renewed hope just reading blogs like this, a lot of online opinion not just in this country but around the world and, the report from the Swiss lab which is potentially explosive to the Government and their lies as, if confirmed, shows that BZ was used (which is a nerve incapacitator) which acts in around 30-60 minutes and which shows the exact symptoms as reported by bystanders who saw the Skripals and, more importantly, clearly stated in Dr Christine Blanchard’s Press Statement from Salisbury Hospital. Off course them media has not quoted Sergei Lavrov’s speech but just demonised him. However, what it appears to say is that BZ was found and also A-234 which is one of the compound agents of a Novichock and that this was found in high quantities in the sample which would have been lethal to the Skripals. The Swiss lab and the lab at the Hague also identified the A-234 as being pure, in other words, as having no impurities which means it has been generated by a Lab. Therefore, depending on how you read things, there is the huge potential and I mean huge, that the Skripals were the recipients of BZ (supported by the observed symptoms) and, the A-234 was added to the samples later on. Now, we all know the Government refused a joint, independent, international investigation, refused to give Russia a sample and did not call the OPCW in until three weeks after the incident. So, I am not sure what we have here because I am not a scientist but I do know it puts a whole different slant on the whole thing. Don’t despair so much, ultimately, China is now stepping up to the mark and Trump has just started the mother of all trade wars with them. They also hold $1.3trillian dollars of USA debt and $1trillion of USA treasury bonds. If they wanted to, they could cause real fluctuations in the USA economy.
If nothing else, we should commend the Russian diplomatic corps for having reintroduced, by example, correct usage of the words refute and dispute into western political discourse.
I really thought we’d crossed an event horizon on that score.
Kay,
I similarly hold the RF diplomatic corps in some repute for their professionalism. I recognize that they would prefer to answer propagandist nonsense with reason, evidence, rule of law, and other nostalgic notions.
But is not excluded that one may do this and do a great deal better at actually managing a public influence campaign. My impression is that that militarily they are playing a weaker hand extraordinarily well, but from a PR perspective they have a strong hand that they are playing only sporadically. Mostly reactive one-offs. The BZ bombshell should be a hammer–they should at least all over RT, Sputnik, etc (see BBC for examples) with this, even if they can’t crack the English MSM (Mindlessly Stenographic Media). Conversely, the UK is playing a catastrophic hand to a near draw–they have no business still being on their feet (front or back) with this mess.
Paul, brilliant post. I believe that Russia knows they are right and are telling the truth here and right is might but not in our MSM. Meanwhile, as you say, the UK Govt’s lies and propaganda are being roundly challenged by bloggers and seemingly, a significant percentage of the population. They shouldn’t be allowed to stay in Govt and it would require mass demonstrations on the part of the British public to grab and focus the attention to this. The question is, can we get it going?
If our government apparently knew about these weapons, why let them be used in the attack and then send cruise missiles to destroy the evidence, rather than notify the opcw who could send inspectors in instead?
duhhhhhhhh!!!!!
WTF have
a. The OPCW
b. Evidence
c. sending inspectors
got to do with this?
Assad gassed poor innocent children, and it is now our God-given right and solemn duty to kill some more Syrians. It’s also kind of macho, don’t you think?
What don’t you get about that?
I love the smell of satire in the morning.
Rob,
That is a question I would have liked JC to have posed on Andrew Marr today.
How many ways we exposed ourselves as having played fast and loose with the OPCW rules in the past month.
I think she needs your help Craig. Why not offer your services? 🙂
Tomorrow in the HoC should be interesting, not that it will change anything.
So where is the much advertised debate in which she will address the Hice/Harse on her ‘Strike’ action.
https://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2018/4/16/Daily
New Moon of Alabama post-
Where the Skripals ‘Buzzed’, ‘Novi-shocked’ Or Neither? – May Has Some ‘Splaining’ To Do
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/where-the-skripals-buzzed-novi-shocked-or-neither-may-has-some-splaining-to-do.html
We are downright gutless!!!
Talk, talk, talk.
Okay here is something to talk about, is it legal to dump depleted uranium shells in the Solway Firth from the M.O.D.’s gun range down there?
Will talk stop it?
There is an obvious question that springs to mind, though I have the depressing suspicion that it will be purely hypothetical.
It is this: if the OPCW concludes that, nope, there was no chemical weapons attack in Douma then will the British government admit that they have just committed a war crime?
Because if I read that pitiful excuse correctly then the correct answer would have to be “Why, yes. Yes, we did”.
But I suspect that the answer would be “OPCW? We don’t need no stinkin’ OPCW”.
The OPCW has already demonstrated that it is a fully-compromised and politicised lick-spittle organisation.
Bolton again:
“John Bolton is a bully,” José Bustani, the retired Brazilian diplomat and former head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, told me when I reached him by phone in Paris earlier this month.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/29/john-bolton-trump-bush-bustani-kids-opcw/
Bolton continued, according to Bustani’s recollections: “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.”
There was a pause.
“We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”
You can’t be THAT slow, surely?!
See if you can follow the logic:
1. OPCW says Syria has no chemical weapons. We KNOW they do, but say nothing
2. OPCW says Russia has no chemical weapons. We KNOW they do, but say nothing
3. We already KNOW it’s Novichok in Salisbury, and Russia did it, even before the OPCW arrive on the scene
4. The OPCW arrive on the scene, it’s not Novichok, no fingers pointing at Russia – SO WHAT, approximately?
5. We already KNOW Assad has gassed poor innocent Jihadis in Ghouta even before the OPCW arrive on the scene
6. The OPCW arrive on the scene, there’s no chemical attack, no finger to point at Assad – SO WHAT, approximately?
what is it about that which you don’t get? Let me break it down for you –
Us = Good Guys
Them = Animals, Monsters, Thugs, Hitler etc
you get the picture? The OPCW is no more relevant to any of this than what the junior doctors in Ghouta say, what Dr Stephen Davies said, the demise of Skripal’s cat or the doleful eyes of Bashar Assad’s teddy bear
Nurse, fetch the straightjacket please.
Ophelia,
You will no doubt be interested in an essay at the Saker that begins with a well known comedy skit featuring two SS soldiers on a bit of downtime, who look at each other’s uniform and end up asking, nonplussed, “Are we the bad guys here?”
As a westerner, I find it a shaming read.
I quoted Blackadder;s “Wise Woman of Putney” on here a few days ago (“Bells” episode, where he has fallen in love with “Bob” – there are only two possible explanations: either I have gone stark raving mad, or everyone else in the whole damned world has
The whole damned world has, not us on this site!
“you get the picture?”
Yeah, I do. I said that ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN LEGAL ARGUMENT if the OPCW find no evidence of a cw attack then the British Government has undoubtedly just committed a war crime.
I also said that ACCORDING TO PAST BEHAVIOUR the British Government will simply brush aside that inconvenience.
So, remind me again where your screed varies in any way from my post…..
After seeing the possible fiddle by the OPCW over the discovery of BZ – I for one no longer have barely a lingering confidence in them.
As for committing a war criime…….
Yep, thats Britain and our political elite.
Our neo/libs and neo/cons at the top.
So how much in reparations?.
We already owe countless billions to Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria and a few others besides.
We would hardly notice the extra billion or two on the account of our war criminality and infamy over the past 25 years.
Emily,
The trouble I lately have with the phrase “war criminal” is, the more fittingly it is applied, the less consequential it seems. Virtually every US president in memory is one. Obama was a war criminal on his first day in office–drone strike on a wedding in Pakistan was it? Certainly this and worse could be levelled at Tony Blair, but he and the Bush Junta, and Scooter Libby, and Ollie North, they just keep coming back for the second acts.
Bombing Syria was a war crime whether or not there was a chemical weapons attack in Douma and if there was, regardless of who committed it.[*]
If you accept the idea that they were telling the truth about the chemical weapons attack, then you are accepting the British, US and French position that “We don’t need no stinkin’ UN Charter”.
(*) For the record, I believe there was no chemical weapons attack, and that in the unlikely event that there was, it was not carried out by the Syrian government but by forces within the USUKIS-helmet-headchopper alliance.
?
N Problem now is the rebels can pull this stunt every time and, Nikki Haley has said they are staying in Syria until their goals are accomplished. Now that is WW111 in the making.
AP: “France urges Russia to join peace push after Syria strike”
Propaganda irony full throttle.
I am reminded about the article in Signal Magazine, the German propaganda paper of the early ’40s, published in the occupied territories, showing daily activities of the conquered populations of France and the other small countries, happily shopping and enjoying the day:
“Germany brings peace to Europe”.
“Peace Bombs” are purely defensive – unlike “Barrel Bombs”, “Novichok”, Unicorns and the Fairies at the bottom of the Garden (which are all just plain Evil)
Robert this is interesting as it seems to me to be the case that Russia is the only party requesting international and diplomatic dialogue and in this has led by example, which has been categorically refused but, now, I do see quite a bit of back peddling from the triple axis who, as I read it want Russia to join a peace process when it is already promoting it in Syria but only on the triple axle’s terms i.e regime change
It is only possibl to conclude from PM May’s statement, that Great Britain has gone full US now. It has chosen to set itself above all international law. It was to all appearances at the right time the UK choose to leave the EU.
The French will be given a spanking, an economical one, at a later stage.
No No No!
France will be given an Honour. You see France has a far bigger nuclear arsenal and military than England.
France was there to intimidate Russia.
You know how it works, “touch one touch all”.
I am curious why other European countries are “not playing ball” this time. Anyone have any ideas? The only one floated around is that Trump May and Macron are all unpopular leaders and a war always bolsters flagging opinions
Only in this case Skyblaze, it appears to have backfired, they have lost, not gained, popularity. The msm is now hopelessly trying to paint May as someone who faces public backlash for her oh so brave decision to bomb another country and now, there is going to be a massive cyber attack in the UK on the part of Russia! How much more ridiculous can the msm get? I guess they could hire the now ex head of Cambridge Analytica to initiate a few false flag attacks I suppose!
3.The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:
Perhaps someone then could ask why she isn’t bombing Saudi Arabia for the worst suffering currently on the planet as they kill indiscriminately, including thousands of children, starve them and leave them to die of Cholera. and other disease.
OOPS! Slap on wrist.
May is doing SOMETHING.
Supplying them with the bombs to kill them with.
Profiteering from one of the worst mass slaughters in recent history.
Aiding and betting the genocide,any way you look at it – thats our May!
Yemeni blood on top of Iraqi blood, on top of Libyan blood, on top of Syrian blood……..
Entertaining on behalf of Britain including arranging tea with the Head of State for the horrendous Brutal Killer committing this genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Thats Theresa May for you.
How she remains in No10 is an absolute mystery and is an insult to we the people by the Tory party..
She is not fit to clean the parliamentary loos never mind queen it over our historic House of Commons.
To paraphrase.
In the name of God – GO!
Wow Emily, well said, succinct and quietly brilliant!
The UK Government is Guilty as Hell and I want Legal action ? if we have any laws left
MR GROVE
BREAKING NEWS
USA to pull all troops out of Syria with immediate effect https://www.rt.com/usa/424204-us-troops-syria-pull-haley/
OK, so that was a total lie, but isn’t everything these days, and in the absence of any evidence, why not just swallow my nonsense? Assad eats babies, by the way, so that means that I’m probably right even if I’m not
There is an ‘extreme humanitarian crisis’ in Britain right now.
How many children are starving? How many are homeless? How many are without hospital beds? How many are without access to education? How many are denied the right to work? How many are in detention (arbitrary imprisonment) or waiting to be deported? How many are abused on the basis of skin color? How much more suffering will be caused by Brexit?
I guess we just have to count ourselves very, very, very lucky that we don’t see other rogue states and their deranged prime ministers pointing to this humanitarian crisis as a rationale for dropping bombs on us, under the pretext of trying to degrade key Tory strongholds and all the institutions/corporations that support them.
I’ve never understood how the public could be so duped by the idea that more violence is going to help diminish violence. Have we really become so stupid as to not see how disgusting this logic is?
The world would be absolute chaos and humanity would be hopeless if every nation’s leader started acting like May and Macron.
Here is the closest thing I can find to an independent assessment of the damage caused during the attack on Syria: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/damage-assessment-of-strikes-in-syria-by-nato-what-was-struck.553781/
Compare this photo: https://defence.pk/pdf/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fgraphics%2F2018%2Fworld%2Fsyria-strikes%2Fimg%2Fshinshar_storage_before.jpg%3Fc%3Dafbe269cefd435859915fac078d6a84d73a584be-1523746137&hash=e662a880fd214d11a7c9136c1c3aebdd (before)
to this one: https://defence.pk/pdf/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fgraphics%2F2018%2Fworld%2Fsyria-strikes%2Fimg%2Fshinshar_storage_after.jpg%3Fc%3Dafbe269cefd435859915fac078d6a84d73a584be-1523746137&hash=82cda17cec39819070aabf155a076232 (after)
according to the USA. 22 cruise missiles hit that facility
similarly here is the alleged Chemical weapons bunker hit by 7 missiles
before: https://defence.pk/pdf/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2018%2F04%2F14%2Fdiptych-0304_him-shinshar-cw-bunker_13april2018_digitalglobe_wv2__custom-0b3a523ced88950abfaacf84cee029904fafb28b-s1300-c85.jpg&hash=eeee11b3664a6d4bc37562514eadbdab
and after: https://defence.pk/pdf/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2018%2F04%2F14%2Fdiptych-0304_him-shinshar-cw-bunker_13april2018_digitalglobe_wv2__custom-0b3a523ced88950abfaacf84cee029904fafb28b-s1300-c85.jpg&hash=eeee11b3664a6d4bc37562514eadbdab
if that’s all the damage you can inflict for $100+ million, I bet the Syrians are laughing their little cotton socks off: either that, or most of the missiles must have been intercepted, in which case I bet the Syrians are laughing their little cotton socks off. Either way, I am not buying it
Yes indeed, scene from Latakia
https://twitter.com/AboZain6
The unofficial targets are interesting. Took a shot at Hezbollah and Damascus airport?
“if that’s all the damage you can inflict for $100+ million, I bet the Syrians are laughing their little cotton socks off: either that, or most of the missiles must have been intercepted, in which case I bet the Syrians are laughing their little cotton socks off”
Actually it’s the arms manufacturers who are laughing their little cotton socks off, because they will get the contracts to replenish the arsenals. More Public Money into Private Pockets.
Sorry but can’t see the photos…all are tiny with a big red X in them.
I keep waiting for some clever web provider to intercut footage of FUKUS strikes yesterday with scenes from Raqqa, Mosul (and Aleppo). Just imagine if *they* and their child enablers had been accused of having chemical weapons.
@ Ophelia Ball
Given the circus to justify attacking Syria and, at the same time, selling arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen, I’d say the below picture is more appropriate. It even clearly shows the lap dog relation between them.
http://tvupstream.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Stream-the-Three-Stooges-660×400.jpg
————————————————-
Ophelia Ball
April 15, 2018 at 14:24
to lighten the mood – what with it being Sunday & all – I’d like to welcome you all to today’s “Spot the Difference” contest
1. https://i2.wp.com/theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/syria-chemical-attack-us-uk-france-military-action-russia-vladimir-putin-trump-may-douma-695031.jpg?w=620
2. https://i2.wp.com/elordenmundial.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Captura-de-pantalla-2014-09-01-a-las-11.40.56.png?resize=678%2C381
Answers on a postcard please, together with your tie-breaker statement “I am legally justified to bomb the living jobbies out of anyone I damned well please….” in not more than 5 easy words, acronyms or irrelevant distractions
——————————————————-
marvellousMRchops
April 15, 2018 at 15:17
You can see the strings in the first picture.
I apologise to Craigs readers, many of whom I now appreciate are not professionals in the field of chemical agents and precision munitions; to make the previous quiz slightly easier, therefore, here is a “Starter for Ten” question to get you thinking along the right lines –
1. Theresa May BEFORE being launching several dozen cruise missiles: http://is-a-cunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/18137-1t8ewuk.jpg
2. Theresa May AFTER launching several dozen cruise missiles: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10581121.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/May.jpg
As I write I am comforted by the breaking news that there is, in fact, Justice in this World after all: following their despicable act in not reacting to blatant provocation in Syria, and having not been found culpable of the Skripal incident by the OPCW, Russia is now to be hit with further sanctions for the heinous crime of merely continuing to exist, rather than surrendering graciously https://www.rt.com/usa/424212-us-sanctions-russia-haley/
In fact, sanctions were the most effective weapon against Saddam, so this is hardly unexpected.
10 years of sanctions plus two years of the ‘no fly zone’ – affectionately called ‘target practice’ by RAF pilots – had already reduced the once most prosperous and non-secular country in the ME to penury. The country was quite unable to defend itself by the time of the Iraq war.
The next step is clearly to supply energy to Europe from America and I confidently expect a real shooting war in Ukraine to follow. Its importance as a transit for Russian energy will cease in 2019 along with any revenue – once a fifth of Ukraine’s economy. The US has already placed sanctions against companies funding and developing the North and South stream projects which guarantee Europe’s supply.
Sanctions did nothing to Saddam Hussein and just crippled an Iraqi public….but I guess you side with Madeline Albright that despite many many deaths related to those sanctions it was all worth it
Not at all. The US is looking to cripple Russia economically in the same way. Sorry you misunderstood. Saddam/Iraq and Putin/Russia are interchangeable in this context.
I agree, it will be interesting to see if Germany will be forced to cancel its recent signing of Nordstream II.
Ophelia Ball, great comments about further sanctions. Somehow though, I am not sure they are going to work. Putin has said they can take it but that it will have a big impact on Europe. Methinks this has the ring of truth. I do believe the USA is making a concerted effort to block Russia from supplying any more cheap gas to Europe. I think Merkl has already signed up to Nordstream 2 but am not sure.
The real issue is.. and you allude to this if not directly address the question…
We live in a post-truth world.
When even ordinary people are turning to RT for less biased news you know something is seriously up.
Yekaterinburg journalist Maxim Borodin has died after falling from a fifth floor window. He recently reported on Russian mercenaries fighting in Syria.
https://www.rferl.org/a/yekaterinburg-journalist-dies-after-falling-from-apartment-window/29168826.html
A suicide note was found: https://5hotnews.com/2018/04/15/the-journalist-who-told-us-about-pmc-wagner-died-after-falling-from-the-balcony/ although his British cousin was denied a visa to visit him in hospital before he died, fuelling speculation that he has been abducted by the Russian state / offered protection under a new identity living in Sochi
this guy appears to have had some enemies in very low places; I am unsure what his untimely demise has to do with bombing Syria although, I suppose, on the face of it, it makes as much sense as any of the other trumped-up reasons
Suicide, like David Kelly and Willie MacRae?
Not enough info Fred yet, to make a decision, though criticism of the Putin cabinet in Russia isn’t widely tolerated, nor reported info on psyop activities.
I’m surprised at you quoting Willie MacRae who we all know was removed by Special Branch, especially since you’re a die-hard establishment unionist at heart.
I read the links, thank you. One guess is Wagner didn’t like the bad press although as you noted he had taken on some very rough people. A brave man, may he rest in peace.
Thank you. From now on, I’ll check RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty when looking for truth about Russia.
Hah!
Lol, Radio Free Europe and Voice of America? You mean those two outlets that are forbidden from broadcasting in the US because they are official US government propaganda rags? You mean the Radio Free Europe that completely failed on the Hungarian market, because after the fall of the wall nobody would listen to its primitive propaganda? These guys left the country with their tail between their legs. If you get your ‘news’ from RFE I feel sorry for you. LOL again from a Hungarian once exposed to this childish propaganda office.
Let me see if I understand the US briefing. They are saying that the *allies* launched 105 enormous missiles at three targets one of which was essentially a two storey building. That’s 35 ballistic missiles per target !?!? That is what they want us to swallow along with their statement that no missiles were shot down, which means that each target was hit by a whacking over kill of 35 enormous missiles.
Or could it be that what Russia and other sources on the ground are reporting is correct? That in fact some 70 missiles were targeted at 6 different airfields in an obvious attempt to disable the Syrian air force and failing?
If the latter, or even if the truth lies somewhere between the patently nonsense US statements and the others, well it makes a mockery of the statements of May and her justifications for the strikes, and she ascends a few more rungs up the W/Crim ladder….
i’ve been wondering this too, that’s a hell of a lot of missiles for three targets.
Smart missiles. When they see the target was already hit,they return to base…..?
No, you’re wrong – that’s not the ‘smart’ missiles that do that, it’s the ‘nice’ ones
(the ‘smart’ ones just say “ooh, you bitch!” and recoil in humiliated surprise)
Sorry but can’t see the photos…all are tiny with a big red X in them.
What’s not right with this missile strike is that so far no video has been released to us on TV taken from cruise missiles as they are about to hit their targets..remember all that video from the first gulf war? And the russian BUKs, don’t they explode infront of the missiles spraying them with tiny pellets, travelling at the same speed…like the malaysian plane, could explain why so little damage on the ground. 70 missiles for one campus?
The trouble with these nice, new, smart missiles is those jaded art critics assigned to comment on their launch are no longer moved to exclaim over their beauty as they depart.
L’on finit par s’habituer a tout, I suppose.
It is better than that, according to the US briefing 78 missiles hit the research center, think about it. That should have created a hole the size of Kansas. The balance went to the other two targets they hit. Syrian press reported deflecting 40 missiles over Damascus alone.
There is an interesting point of view at MofA on the subject proposing that these missiles were fired to determine Syrian military capabilities prior to a new, new strike sometime in the future and not to do real damage this time around. Seems wasteful but possible.
I am more inclined to think that Russia souped up Syrian defenses far more than publicized those clever rascals and this latest Axis of Evil endeavor was soundly flummoxed.
But this is just one battle in one war, the AofE end game is the downfall of Russia and everyone in this game knows it.
This is a calm, collected and brilliant analysis, as one would expect from a former diplomat, as opposed to a political gangster. Quite how Mr Murray has remained so calm eludes me, as he seems to have been the first person to have been subject to British bombs in this sorry, squalid affair.
In 2013, I believe British politics reached turning point. Jeremy Hunt was bang to rights on a charge of misusing his Offfce to aid the Murdoch Organisation gain the upper hand in the BSkyB takeover. He rose to answer the charge by claming “I have done nothing wrong”. He got away with it, and was promoted at the next rehuffle.
That was the moment the political class in the UK realised it could get away with anything, and suffer only minor damage at worst. Since then, the Rule of Law has been disappearing before our eyes.
Like Blair and Campbell, May and Johnson don’t want legal arguments, they want plausible excuses. They have been caught out by counter-evidence and argument at every turn, but still ploughed on.
The United Kingdom is now a de facto dictatorship.
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/the-sunday-essay-12-reasons-to-support-the-concept-of-britain-as-a-neo-totalitarian-state-with-no-right-to-be-bombing-syria/
So the bottom line of Lavrov’s claims is that someone has meddled with the samples that the Swiss lab tested? Is he saying that the Skripals were actually poisoned with the less lethal Nato-developed BZ rather than far-more-deadly-than-VX Russia-developed novichok, and then the novichok must have been added later to the sample because the quantity and purity of the novichok in the sample would undoubtedly have killed the Skripals? Is that something like the gist of his argument?
Sounds like the OPCW, Porton Down and the UK government have got some questions to answer, if the leak from the Swiss lab is genuine and accurate.
Seems about the sum of it to me.
There was BZ in the sample, BZ doesn’t kill you, and they are still alive – we are told.
There was also A234 which was of sufficient concentration and purity that they would be dead, and they are not – we are told.
Ergo, the latter must have been added to the former, out of the body so to speak.
Is it true?
If it were not, it is so eminently disprovable as to be tantamount to handing all initiative back over to the madhouse on a golden platter.
Like gassing your own people when you have the war won…..
Doghouse, thank you, your last line raised the first laugh in me today. Never has anything so true been said. it also explains why the UK Govt refused the request by Russia for an independent, international, joint investigation by the OPCW and why they only invited the OPCW in at week 3 – a little bit of evidence tampering methinks. The UK has conducted a single, secret investigation which leaves no doubt that it must have something to hide. In the meantime, Russia hasn’t got anything to hide so requests a joint independent OPCW investigation. If the UK had engaged with the Convention investigative process from the start and had conducted an open and transparent investigation, there might be more reason to believe them. However, they have been shown to be liars and negators and deniers of the rule of law and international law whereas Russia is proactive in seeking investigation precisely via those to processes. I know who I believe and it is not the UK Govt. I doubt whether we are ever going to see or hear from the Skripals again.
Has anybody posted Elijer Magnier’s
exceptionally well informed article?
A look behind the ‘looking Glass’ if ever there s one.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/04/15/the-us-secret-plan-on-damascus-foiled-the-russian-role-before-and-after-the-us-uk-france-attack-revealed/
Yes, I cannot see that Russia and the NATO aggressors, which some wit labelled FUKUS, did not have some face-saving agreement. This was a much preferred option to world annihilation. Andrew Korybko, always worth reading, gives his analysis here:
http://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/04/14/the-syrian-show-must-go-on/
Magnier’s piece is excellent. I hadn’t thought of the possibility of the US launching an attack on Damascus out of al-Tanf. At any rate, the Russians had already put troops into Damascus (to defend the presidential palace, I suppose) two months ago, even before the reconquest of Ghouta. It would have been difficult for the US-supported jihadis to take out Damascus without confronting the Russians.
I think the US did fire 40 missiles at Damascus targets as Syria claims, remember what Pompeo said the other day; that 200 Russians had died already and Russia did nothing. That dismissive comment may have been to lay the groundwork for a “Who knew?” if they did kill Russians during this attack and Russia responded.
Apologies to anyone who has seen this take on International Law and why the US and UK breach it with impunity. Craig is correct, the doctrine of ‘Right to Protect’ [R2P] has not been accepted as part of International Law. In my opinion and unfortunately International Law is dead, now, whenever US policy is blocked by a veto wielding member of the UNSC, the US simply forms a coalition of the willing to by- pass the UNSC, of course invoking the Right to protect [R2P] unilaterally is also illegal since this doctrine can only be used when there is no veto at the UNSC.
There is a fundamental contradiction written into the UN Charter on the one hand, article 2[1] states; “The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” But, on the other hand, Article 23 of the Charter grants five of its Members permanent seats on the Security Council, and Article 27 gives each of them a veto over decisions of the Council. Clearly, all Members are equal, but some Members are more equal than others. Thus all five veto wielding powers the US, UK, France, China and Russia AND their friends are above International law, for all time. So that should all four veto wielding members gang up on the US, the US simply veto’s the Resolution it is then consigned to the memory hole.
Academic lawyers in their thousands may protest that taking military action against Iraq for instance was illegal because it lacked proper authorisation by the Security Council, but it is of no consequence in the real world when there is no possibility of the UK, or its political leadership, being convicted for taking such action. It is meaningless to describe an action as illegal if there is no expectation that the perpetrator of the action will be convicted by a competent judicial body. In the real world, an action is legal unless a competent judicial body rules that it is illegal. http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf
The American Service Members Protection Act authorizes the U.S. president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the ‘International Criminal Court’ [ICC]. This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the “Hague Invasion Act”, because the freeing of U.S. citizens by force might be possible only through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts and of the Dutch government.
Indeed. As an international organisation the UN has become as useless as the old League of Nations was prior to WWII. Some rethink on how to relieve the power of the five permanent members of the security council is needed. The main question that needs addressing is how the UN can be effective when nation states choose to ignore international law. I wish I had an answer.
it’s law for ordinary people and no law for those at the top, they seem unaccountable for their actions and know it, it seems the law only applies to the fallen and powerless, Saddam Hussein has hanged but Tony Blair walked free and even prospered from breaking the law, Saddam was no angel but Blair was responsible for thousands of deaths including British servicemen and destroying peoples lives, if law was applied he would have faced war crimes, as an ordinary member of the public i expect to face the consequences if caught breaking the law, as the prime minister of UK Theresa May dismisses the process of law and expects to be patted on the back for it, sickening arrogance.
Very well said Jones. Courts of Law normally dish out higher sentences according to the breach of trust in the office held. Can only be done if you are brought before a Court though, and the biggest obstacle to this is the total complicity of all mainstream media who are in effect, and in every way, equal war criminals in my opinion.
Craig’s copy-and-paste must be wrong, surely the HMG would’ve said something about two of Russia’s resolutions being vetoed by the UK under 4(ii)! /sarcasm
Incidentally, if you want positive proof that the Russian claims that Syrian Air Defence intercepted 71 out of the 103 missiles launched just look at the new sanctions that are apparently coming into effect this Monday: https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3007354
The Americans must be foaming that some archaic Soviet-era missile defences managed to bring down Trumps “new” and “smart” missiles. To be frank, Russia couldn’t have asked for a better sales promo for their S-400!
How did air defences fare in Aleppo, against the bombing raid by “unidentified” warplanes that took place less than 24 hours after the FUKUS attack?
Do you have a link, I have seen nothing on an attack on Aleppo:(
Israeli planes?
Remember the UK bombing of Port Stanley airport in the Falklands in 1982? By the vintage vulcan bomber…we were told it was a resounding success. So much so, they bombed it again the following day! As Peter Snow once said “if we can believe the british…” before he was branded a traitor ( he might have said it about the belgrano, and no we can’t!). Bring back that snivelling grey civil servant who used to get on the box with more bad news from the Falklands…
Hello Craig Murray,
Let’s take her to court. I’ve assigend a petition for this and I’ve used your argument and content to support your claim.
If we can get 100k signatures we can have the matter heard in parliament and we may even get Theresa to court,, that would be nice wouldn’t it.
Please call me
Sorry its already been tried…Britain’s High Court has blocked an attempt by an Iraqi ex-general to prosecute former Prime Minister Tony Blair for invading Iraq in 2003.
General Abdulwaheed Shannan Al Rabbat’s case centred on the concept that a “crime of aggression” would be recognised under English law. But the High Court said that while the concept exists under international law, it does not exist in domestic law at present. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/uk-court-blocks-iraqi-general-bid-prosecute-blair-170731161620916.html
Of course. You will remember that Belgium had a statute which had existed for 50 years, allowing foreign nationals to open war crimes cases in Brussels courts. As soon as Iraquis looked likely of doing just that, Colin Powell was instrumental in closing it down. Threats included pulling NATO headquarters out of Brussels.
As well meaning as your intention is and I’d wish nothing more than to see it achieved, I believe the 100k signatures gets the matter considered for debate.
I think we all know what their answer to that would be.
Best of luck with it.
https://www.gov.uk/petition-government
* Last night’s bombing of Aleppo by “unidentified” warplanes is getting remarkably little western media coverage. This is despite reports that state that 20 people were killed in the attacks.
* We all know that the chief of staff of the Russian armed forces predicted a staged chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta, to be used as an excuse for US bombing of Syria. (You can watch him doing it here.) In that, he was right. But he also predicted that the response would be the US bombing of the government districts of Damascus, where, as we know, there is a Russian presence. So far, the US and the British kingdom have bombed only other targets, not Damascus. Why? Did Russia deter them?
* Rational consideration suggests that in the normal course of things, a staged chemical weapons attack of this kind requires considerable planning. However, the course of things is not always normal and I have to wonder whether they might not have contingency plans on the shelf for acts of this kind which can be put into operation at much shorter notice. If they are planning to bomb Damascus then they may need another pretext.
* The US and British bombing raids on Syria came in between two bombing raids by Iｓ?ael against the same country. Are the Iｓ?aelis trying to trigger a NATO-Russian war? Note that I say “trigger”. It has already been caused. It will start. The question is when. The Iｓ?aelis would probably prefer the trigger to have an Iranian flavour, even if combined with other flavours.
“* Last night’s bombing of Aleppo by “unidentified” warplanes is getting remarkably little western media coverage. This is despite reports that state that 20 people were killed in the attacks.”
The story is still developing but it looks like Israel was not happy with the restrained efforts of FUKUS on their behalf. That the majority killed are Iranians it could escalate. How the world loves Israel!
http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/world-news/2369-israel-launched-new-attack-upon-syria
Well, we do love Israel – truly, madly and deeply – that’s why the ENTIRE UN Security Council voted to denounce it for killing Palestinian civilians, but the resolution was vetoed by the USA. Thank goodness there is Justice in this World and, just in case you forgot the Jerusalem Embassy vote – WE ARE TAKING NAMES
Here is another report. Some of the information is coming from the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (which if I recall is a western-funded guy in Coventry). It could be true. It could be fake.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/blast-rocks-syria-area-hosting-iran-backed-fighters-1172812767
“So far, the US and the British kingdom have bombed only other targets, not Damascus. Why? Did Russia deter them?”
Almost certainly it was a face-saving exercise. See my comment here (April 15, 2018 at 18:11) and the one above it. Andrew Korybko is a Russian educated at, I think, Harvard.