Russian nerve agent attack

Exactly. May said that it was the pictures of the children that convinced her to go ahead. But she was quite happy to refuse to take in 3000 Syrian children when local authorities had plans to accept them and the Commons had approved it. Probably didn't want to upset the Daily Mail.

 

May jumped because Trump told her to and she is too weak to stand up to him. Ask yourself this - Was Donnie's decision to attack Syria borne out of some altruistic sense of protecting the Syrian people from chemical attack? Was it f*ck!

Don’t agree, sorry.

On another note, I notice Jezza said he would go into ‘action’ if Russia gave the nod.

I'm not for a second suggesting we are just as bad as people who would use chemical weapons against their own people. Merely pointing out that it's pretty hypocritical for our PM to be moralising about the use of such weapons when it was her own predecessor's government that authorised the export of them.

 

May jumped because Trump told her to and she is too weak to stand up to him. Ask yourself this - Was Donnie's decision to attack Syria borne out of some altruistic sense of protecting the Syrian people from chemical attack? Was it f*ck!

You said we can't claim the moral high ground, well we can. Every government is hypocritical and I'm not disputing that May/Cameron are any different but we have the moral high ground over Putin/Assad.

No, it's not about Trumps love of Syrian children. It's about stopping Russia from thinking they can prop up brutal regimes who are willing to use chemical weapons on civilians, be it in Syria or anywhere else.

Sorry but I disagree. Our government simply cannot claim the moral high ground here...

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-uk-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html

Except that this piece is from 2013 concerning actions from 2012. I take your point that this Government today has double standards, but in this particular case it is a different Leader, business Secretary, Coalition, etc.

I mean, look at who was being questioned over waving the deal through. Vince cable, now a leader of an irrelevant party, who manages to win as much airtime as he wins votes.

On another note, I notice Jezza said he would go into ‘action’ if Russia gave the nod.

Has he? Where are you getting that from?

It is also coming out that the Russians and Syrians are blocking the international inspectors (OPCW) getting in the required areas.

Obviously, that is probably a lie.

You said we can't claim the moral high ground, well we can. Every government is hypocritical and I'm not disputing that May/Cameron are any different but we have the moral high ground over Putin/Assad.

 

No, it's not about Trumps love of Syrian children. It's about stopping Russia from thinking they can prop up brutal regimes who are willing to use chemical weapons on civilians, be it in Syria or anywhere else.

But it's the double standards that's the issue, which foreign powers can and will quite rightly point to.

Our government is currently 'propping up a brutal regime' carrying out mass genocide on civilians in Yemen, but apparently that's OK because they aren't using chemical weapons, so May's conscience is apparently clear.

But it's the double standards that's the issue, which foreign powers can and will quite rightly point to.

 

Our government is currently 'propping up a brutal regime' carrying out mass genocide on civilians in Yemen, but apparently that's OK because they aren't using chemical weapons, so May's conscience is apparently clear.

You have concrete evidence we are propping up genocide?

You have concrete evidence we are propping up genocide?

Maybe you missed all the headlines last month when the Saudi prince visited the UK to do a massive arms deal with our government. Arms which are being used in what UNICEF is calling a humanitarian crisis.

Theresa May cannot pretend to care about the lives of Arab civilians while remaining completely silent about that.

Maybe you missed all the headlines last month when the Saudi prince visited the UK to do a massive arms deal with our government. Arms which are being used in what UNICEF is calling a humanitarian crisis.

 

Theresa May cannot pretend to care about the lives of Arab civilians while remaining completely silent about that.

I asked for concrete evidence (that’s how it works, right?)

Please provide specifics rather than just press releases

Ta

If press releases aren't acceptable then I'll just jump on a flight to Yemen and take some pictures shall I? ?

I see exactly what you are trying to do here Batman, and you're only making yourself look foolish. I obviously can't give you 'concrete' evidence, and then no doubt you will throw that back at me for wanting it before supporting our government's actions. But the situations are quite obviously not the same, and you know that full well.

Are you going to answer my previous question about where JC has said he would go into action if Russia gave the nod?

I don't think anyone seriously believes the Saudis are undertaking a genocide in Yemen, do they?

Saudi actions - whether right or wrong - are driven in this example by a fear of Iran.

The whole situation in Syria is ****ed. From what I can see is it can only be resolved in two ways, 1. Go to war with Russia, or 2. Sit down and talk with Russia. Throwing a few missiles at Assad is not going to achieve anything with regards to the outcome of the war, though I agree with it in principle if he did carry out the gas attacks - which looks most likely.

I don't think anyone seriously believes the Saudis are undertaking a genocide in Yemen, do they?

 

Saudi actions - whether right or wrong - are driven in this example by a fear of Iran.

It's side effects are genocidal.

Don’t agree, sorry.

On another note, I notice Jezza said he would go into ‘action’ if Russia gave the nod.

Says the man asking for concrete sources

I hate this, "we're just as bad as them," argument.

 

We aren't using chemical weapons against our own civilians in our own streets. Neither are we giving military support to a government which is. With regards to that story, I'm much more inclined to believe our government was simply incompetent in accurately moderating the sales of these chemicals, by a third party, rather than maliciously selling chemical weapon ingredients to a dictator.

 

Also, journalists who criticise our government don't keep dying in tragic accidents/suicides/heart attacks.

We are giving military support to a government that uses cluster bombs in civilian area of another country though,so where's the difference?

Bexy's mum's been on the telly again.

Bexy's mum's been on the telly again.

 

Such edgy humour.

This man would make a better leader of Labour

http://video.dailymail.co.uk/preview/mol/2018/04/15/3269892836332190396/636x382_MP4_3269892836332190396.mp4

This man would make a better leader of Labour

http://video.dailymail.co.uk/preview/mol/2018/04/15/3269892836332190396/636x382_MP4_3269892836332190396.mp4

Dear god.

Bexy's mum's been on the telly again.

 

Wow. I always thought you were a bit of a kn0bhead. Now I know for sure, you're a total pr!ck

The whole situation in Syria is ****ed. From what I can see is it can only be resolved in two ways, 1. Go to war with Russia, or 2. Sit down and talk with Russia. Throwing a few missiles at Assad is not going to achieve anything with regards to the outcome of the war, though I agree with it in principle if he did carry out the gas attacks - which looks most likely.

There is no real solution for the mess in Syria (or Iraq or Libya for that matter) as there are no 'good guys' you can trust to do any better for the Syrian citizens. For example: Assad is not the only one using chemical weapons as the UN has stated. Take out Assad and you'll get some other bastard (or bastards) to f*ck things up. Also, it appears 'the west' doesn't have any idea what to do with the situation in Syria (or the Middle East), let alone some kind of strategy. Firing some missiles and giving the Russians an advance warning where those missiles will land, Putin must be laughing his ass off about the incompetence of his western counterparts.

With no idea or strategy it's better to stay out of Syria right now until things have settled. As Iraq and Libya have already shown it's better to have some dictator ruling with an iron fist. Albeit a monster like Assad, there's no alternative at this moment.

There is no real solution for the mess in Syria (or Iraq or Libya for that matter) as there are no 'good guys' you can trust to do any better for the Syrian citizens. For example: Assad is not the only one using chemical weapons as the UN has stated. Take out Assad and you'll get some other bastard (or bastards) to f*ck things up........................... Firing some missiles and giving the Russians an advance warning where those missiles will land, Putin must be laughing his ass off about the incompetence of his western counterparts.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. There is no good outcome to the mess in syria, which is exactly why the West has mostly stayed out of the conflict, except to tackle IS. The second part of your post is missing the point. The missile attack was about use of chemical weapons, not primarily about Syria. Its crossing a red line. Its the same reason the Skripal attack generated such a widespread, international reaction in the way that Litvinenko and others didn't. It was more important to send a message of consequences if they persisted than about the actual effectiveness of that particular strike.

I notice Jeremy's brother ,Piers, says that the chemical attack in Syria was fake news and that the reason the kids were crying was down to the kids having water thrown over them.

I assume this is what you are alluding to...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

I assume this is what you are alluding to...

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

 

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

Chlorine gas is heavier than air, so it sinks to the lowest level, displacing the air in places like basements. It causes hypoxia. Do you see any dust on the victims bought in in that video? Robert Fisk visited the area accompanied by Syrian Government troops. What exactly did you expect Dr Assim Rahaibani to say to a Western journalist who interviewed him whilst Assad's thugs stood next to him?

Chlorine gas is heavier than air, so it sinks to the lowest level, displacing the air in places like basements. It causes hypoxia. Do you see any dust on the victims bought in in that video? Robert Fisk visited the area accompanied by Syrian Government troops. What exactly did you expect Dr Assim Rahaibani to say to a Western journalist who interviewed him whilst Syrian government troops stood next to him?

Did you not read this bit of Fisk's report?

"I walked across this town quite freely yesterday without soldier, policeman or minder to haunt my footsteps, just two Syrian friends, a camera and a notebook.... I first drove into Douma as part of an escorted convoy of journalists. But once a boring general had announced outside a wrecked council house “I have no information” – that most helpful rubbish-dump of Arab officialdom – I just walked away. Several other reporters, mostly Syrian, did the same. Even a group of Russian journalists – all in military attire – drifted off... It was a short walk to Dr Rahaibani."

Did you not read this bit of Fisk's report?

 

"I walked across this town quite freely yesterday without soldier, policeman or minder to haunt my footsteps, just two Syrian friends, a camera and a notebook.... I first drove into Douma as part of an escorted convoy of journalists. But once a boring general had announced outside a wrecked council house “I have no information” – that most helpful rubbish-dump of Arab officialdom – I just walked away. Several other reporters, mostly Syrian, did the same. Even a group of Russian journalists – all in military attire – drifted off... It was a short walk to Dr Rahaibani."

Yeah I did. Apparently you did but didn't understand. #usefulidiots

https://www.amnestyusa.org/files/mde240162012en.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/up-to-13000-secretly-hanged-in-syrian-jail-says-amnesty

Yeah I did. Apparently you did but didn't understand. #usefulidiots

https://www.amnestyusa.org/files/mde240162012en.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/up-to-13000-secretly-hanged-in-syrian-jail-says-amnesty

It's a pretty shocking account of government abuse, granted, but how does a 6-year old report prove your claim that there were soldiers present when Fisk interviewed this doctor?

It's a pretty shocking account of government abuse, granted, but how does a 6-year old report prove your claim that there were soldiers present when Fisk interviewed this doctor?

Seriously? Fisk was allowed in on an Assad approved visit, accompanied by two Assad approved Syrians. Somewhere between 13,000 and 60,000 critics of the regime have been tortured and killed. Dr Rahaibani knows whatever he says is going to be witnessed and recorded by Assad approved visitors. What would you say?

What about the absence of dust btw or the fact chlorine has been found in the blood samples of the victims?

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. There is no good outcome to the mess in syria, which is exactly why the West has mostly stayed out of the conflict, except to tackle IS. The second part of your post is missing the point. The missile attack was about use of chemical weapons, not primarily about Syria. Its crossing a red line. Its the same reason the Skripal attack generated such a widespread, international reaction in the way that Litvinenko and others didn't. It was more important to send a message of consequences if they persisted than about the actual effectiveness of that particular strike.

My point is that the West has no strategy on dealing with the situation in Syria at all. Even those missiles as a reaction to the use of chemical weapons are silly, it's just symbolic nonsense. As there was no approval of the UN it might even backfire on them in due course. You could say that the missile attack is just a sanction on crossing a red line but that would be a purely academic exercise in the hellhole that Syria is.

I'm just trying to keep an open mind to all possibilities. Just because I posted about that Fisk report doesn't mean I 100% believe that's what happened. I was actually just expanding the discussion by responding to Oldnick's post with something that appeared to be more substantial.

The claim that chlorine was found in blood samples of the victims comes from NBC with the quote "The officials said they were "confident" in the intelligence, though not 100 percent sure." Not exactly cast iron that, is it. Certainly not strong enough to be deciding to kick the hornets nest and **** off the Russians even more.

Yes I accept that the video does not show people covered in dust. But they all appear to have been hosed down, so it does not prove there was no dust either.

As for Fisk's report - he has been embedded in the middle east for decades and has an excellent reputation for neutrality and objectivity, and as such it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he actually has some friends and contacts in Syria. He certainly isn't pro-Putin or pro-Assad, so it seems a little odd to me that he would not mention in his report if he was being escorted by Assad's men and that the doctor's testimony was made under duress.

I really am just trying to understand what happened by reading and absorbing news from all angles. So far, it seems that our entire case for the chemical attack is based on the White Helmets' video, and they're not exactly the most trustworthy source of information are they? They're intrinsically linked to ISIS and Al-Nusra who, last time I checked, were supposed to be our enemies.

There may or may not have been a chemical attack in Douma last week. It may or may not have been carried out by the Assad regime. There is clearly a lot of misinformation being spread and it is difficult to separate what's true from what's not, but I am far from convinced by the 'evidence' our government has claimed so far.

Why would they decide to go in and attack a facility that has already been declared free of chemical weapons by the OPCW, the very day before the OPCW were due to go in and carry out an actual investigation? May claims that it was crucial to act quickly to give the element of surprise, but Trump had already given them pre-warning via Twitter FFS. None of it adds up.

IF Assad launched the attack, you have to ask yourself what possible strategic advantage he would gain from it (a point that the former chief of our armed forces in Iraq was making on Sky news the other day). He may be a murderous tyrant, but he isn't stupid. His forces had all but won against what remained of the rebel forces in the region, so why would he then go and do the one thing that was guaranteed to turn the rest of the world against him? Just days after Trump had announced that he was pulling troops out because they were no longer needed? Again, it just doesn't add up.

My point is that the West has no strategy on dealing with the situation in Syria at all. Even those missiles as a reaction to the use of chemical weapons are silly, it's just symbolic nonsense. As there was no approval of the UN it might even backfire on them in due course. You could say that the missile attack is just a sanction on crossing a red line but that would be a purely academic exercise in the hellhole that Syria is.

What workable strategy could realistically be developed? Assad is a brutal dictator and most of the opposition in the western part of the country is potentially equally brutal. Its a nasty civil war with no likely good outcome no matter what the West does. The Americans' strategy seems to be to protect the only moderate grouping - the Kurds in the East of the country.

What workable strategy could realistically be developed? Assad is a brutal dictator and most of the opposition in the western part of the country is potentially equally brutal. Its a nasty civil war with no likely good outcome no matter what the West does. The Americans' strategy seems to be to protect the only moderate grouping - the Kurds in the East of the country.

They could start out by establishing the same goals. It's ridiculous that one country says that the West have to negotiate with Assad while another publicly states that Assad must be judged for his crimes by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. After figuring out what they want with Assad the West has to determine what they want for Syria in order to prevent the complete chaos we now see in Libya after Obama and Clinton totally f*cked up this country.

As the West doesn't want to put 'boots on the ground' in Syria they'll have to get Turkey, Iran, Russia, Iraq etc. to the negotiating table in order to get some grip on the situation. Hell of a job of course but at least they should give it a try. Imo the West should have set the example that the other countries can emulate. That's why shooting those missiles was a stupid mistake (especially when the researchers of the OPCW were on their way to Syria...), how can you condemn Turkey for it's actions in Syria when you're bombing Syria yourself without UN mandate?

As I'm rather cynical about the chances of diplomacy (the West doesn't have much leverage as they have to blame themselves for contributing to the chaos in the Middle East) I don't expect much from these negotiations but there's no way around this.

The former First Sea Lord of the British Navy and Minister for Security and Counter Terrorism, appearing on the BBC to dispute the narrative that Assad carried out the Douma chemical attack.

Is he just being a useful idiot for the Kremlin?

 

The former First Sea Lord of the British Navy and Minister for Security and Counter Terrorism, appearing on the BBC to dispute the narrative that Assad carried out the Douma chemical attack.

 

Is he just being a useful idiot for the Kremlin?

Yes.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/putin-hacks-british-homes-russian-cyber-agents-set-to-cripple-laptops-phones-and-critical-national-infrastructure-after-secretly-accessing-millions-of-computers/ar-AAvXFDb?ocid=spartanntp

It amazes me that such aggression does not count as acts of war

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/putin-hacks-british-homes-russian-cyber-agents-set-to-cripple-laptops-phones-and-critical-national-infrastructure-after-secretly-accessing-millions-of-computers/ar-AAvXFDb?ocid=spartanntp

It amazes me that such aggression does not count as acts of war

And you really, really think that just the Russians are doing that ? Cyber warfare, information warfare.

 

The former First Sea Lord of the British Navy and Minister for Security and Counter Terrorism, appearing on the BBC to dispute the narrative that Assad carried out the Douma chemical attack.

 

Is he just being a useful idiot for the Kremlin?

He's not "disputing" it, he's questioning why Assad would have done it and raises the possibility that it was carried out by opposition forces to frame Assad. I believe this is sometimes referred to as a teleological fallacy. The notion that Mr X. wouldn't have done something because it wasn't in Mr X's best interests.

He freely admits he doesn't have any evidence either way and he says that Russia "lies as a matter of policy". He dismisses the idea that a foreign nation state staged the attack as implausible.

He simply urges caution and notes that sometimes the military and intelligence services come under political pressure.

It's just a reasonably balanced, but ultimately uninformative, vignette.

He's not "disputing" it, he's questioning why Assad would have done it and raises the possibility that it was carried out by opposition forces to frame Assad. I believe this is sometimes referred to as a teleological fallacy. The notion that Mr X. wouldn't have done something because it wasn't in Mr X's best interests.

 

He freely admits he doesn't have any evidence either way and he says that Russia "lies as a matter of policy". He dismisses the idea that a foreign nation state staged the attack as implausible.

 

He simply urges caution and notes that sometimes the military and intelligence services come under political pressure.

 

It's just a reasonably balanced, but ultimately uninformative, vignette.

He's not "disputing" it, he's questioning why Assad would have done it and raises the possibility that it was carried out by opposition forces to frame Assad. I believe this is sometimes referred to as a teleological fallacy. The notion that Mr X. wouldn't have done something because it wasn't in Mr X's best interests.

 

He freely admits he doesn't have any evidence either way and he says that Russia "lies as a matter of policy". He dismisses the idea that a foreign nation state staged the attack as implausible.

 

He simply urges caution and notes that sometimes the military and intelligence services come under political pressure.

 

It's just a reasonably balanced, but ultimately uninformative, vignette.

He's disputing the certainty of the evidence, is what I meant.

It also gives the opposition more, to muddy the waters

Yes, I get that. And it's pretty obvious that Russia are world leaders at muddying waters themselves.

But should we accept what the government tells us, and flatly refuse to question the evidence, just because to do otherwise plays into Putin's hands?

It's pretty obvious that Russia are world leaders at muddying waters themselves......but should we accept what the government tells us, and flatly refuse to question the evidence, just because to do otherwise plays into Putin's hands?

Depends on your starting point. If you have two choirboy first time offenders blaming each other - of course you need conclusive proof. However in this case one party is an alliance between a dictator who has tortured and killed up to 60,000 political opponents, bombs civilian areas and has a proven history of using chemical weapons together with a nation state who has launched four invasions and wars in the past 20 years, habitually lies as a matter of policy and assassinates opponents, journalists and 'traitors'. The other party is a woman whose biggest crime is being a bit crap and ineffectual and a member of the National Trust.

I dunno Bexy. Are you still torn 50:50?

 

But should we accept what the government tells us, and flatly refuse to question the evidence, just because to do otherwise plays into Putin's hands?

Of course we should. Good God man, we're British.

Of course we should. Good God man, we're British.

After the economic disaster called Brexit and after Putin has screwed all of your laptops, at least you'll still have that wonderful sense of British humour!

I dunno Bexy. Are you still torn 50:50?

Is that what it boils down to for you? A simple black and white, either/or choice? Our opponents are bad so we must be good? Nothing is ever that simple, as well you know.

Yes, Assad is a murdering tyrant, and yes, Putin is the authoritarian dictator of a regime that uses disinformation and assassination to keep itself in power. I have never doubted or questioned that. It doesn't, however, mean that I automatically believe everything that my own government tells me.

If our leaders want to claim the moral high ground and pretend to be the good guys fighting a moral crusade of truth and justice, they need to make sure they have the strongest possible footing from which to do that. But they haven't even come close to it.

They launched a missile strike against Syria, knowing full well that it was going to provoke Russia, without a UN resolution and before any investigation had been able to confirm that Assad had carried out the chemical attack in Douma. If he didn't, as many respectable people are suggesting is very possible, then our government have either been duped into doing what they thought was 'the right thing' based on the flimsiest of evidence, or they have an alternative agenda and simply used the chemical attack as an excuse to do what they had already chosen to do. Either way, it doesn't look good on us does it.

Let's be clear here - May would never have chosen to take that action if she wasn't being influenced by Trump, and do any of you honestly believe that he gives the slightest sh!t about things like truth, decency and justice? Honestly? History is full of examples of political decisions and military action being taken on dubious pretexts. We owe it to ourselves, and our families, and the rest of the world at large, to try and uncover the truth, because what's happening now is likely to shape the future of our society.

If you're happy to put your faith in what you're told by your government purely because you think Assad and Putin are bad men, and to do otherwise would be appearing to side with them, then that's your prerogative. I can't and won't do that.

A Republican congressman now joins the growing list of people casting doubt on the narrative.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/986968440979247105

In briefing to Congress, DNI, SecDef, and SecState provided zero real evidence. Referenced info circulating online. Which means either they chose not to provide proof to Congress or they don’t have conclusive proof that Assad carried out gas attack. Either way, not good.

A Republican congressman now joins the growing list of people casting doubt on the narrative.

 

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/986968440979247105

A Republican congressman now joins the growing list of people casting doubt on the narrative.

 

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/986968440979247105

Massie is bats**t crazy - your typical tea partier, deep state conspiraloon.

So you're on the side of David icke, assad, putin and American republicans. Interesting.

**** me, just because one doesn't believe everything our government says doesn't mean they are are on anyone's side. It doesn't make you a conspiracy loon to want to question the evidence, it just makes you intelligent enough to realise there are a lot of people with different agendas.

By your rationale, everyone who was correct about Iraqi WMDs was on the side of Saddam Hussain.

The government were wrong about WMDs and so for evermore they are lying scumbags in perpetuity. Seems logical.

And don't give me this tripe about "intelligent people keep an open mind." Intelligent people look at the balance of probabilities, all the available evidence and then understand who is to blame. But yes let's just pretend it was a British false flag operation because we haven't got a signed Russian confession and because Putin said so and because Blair lied about something 15 years ago.

Is that what it boils down to for you? A simple black and white, either/or choice? .....If you're happy to put your faith in what you're told by your government purely because you think Assad and Putin are bad men, and to do otherwise would be appearing to side with them, then that's your prerogative. I can't and won't do that.

Yes, its a black and white choice. You either act on the evidence you can get or you do nothing and risk giving the green light to further atrocities. Is the evidence 100% conclusive? No. Is it stronger than the 50% threshold for balance of probability? Yes absolutely.

If you sincerely hold the views you post here you should never go into Government - because you would be utterly ineffectual if you did. The world has rightly drawn a red line over use of chemical weapons. There is no hand wringing option. May had to make a decision based on what she knew. you and I will never know the details of that knowledge - so yes ultimately you have to trust that either Assad / Putin is telling the truth or May / macron / Trump is. Wait for 100% proof which will never come and you become Burke's good man who does nothing and allows evil to triumph.