British regime ready to bypass Parliament to authorize unprovoked attack on beleaguered Syria

RT
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:21 UTC

© Tom Nicholson / Global Look Press

Martial May, British dictator who gases her own people

UK Prime Minister Theresa May appears ready to get the UK involved in a possible military strike against Syria without seeking the Parliament's approval, the BBC reports citing "well-placed sources."

May reportedly sees an "urgent" need for a response, according to government insiders. She also appears to believe a military intervention will prevent further chemical incidents in Syria.

Comment: What happens when you multiply one delusion by another delusion? You get the British government.

May's reported willingness to jump on board the looming strike, which the US says it is still making up its mind on, comes despite the fact that no investigation has yet been carried out into the alleged chemical incident in Syria's Douma, which fired up Western governments openly supporting the forces seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. While a number of anti-government groups, including the so-called White Helmets, have accused Assad of waging a new chemical attack on civilians, Damascus and Moscow have dismissed the incident as a staged act. With Douma being the last Islamist-occupied town in eastern Ghouta, which the Syrian Army has recently liberated from militants, and Damascus having been engaged in talks with the Jaysh al-Islam group now leaving the area, there was no logical justification for such an attack offered by those accusing Assad.

The absence of proof seems to have made May reluctant to jump to war immediately, at least according to a report by the Times, which suggested that she requested "more evidence" during private phone calls with US President Donald Trump. This is despite public statements by May and her government officials claiming that there were "all the indications" that the Syrian government was responsible for the yet-unverified incident.

Comment: That's rich coming from May, coming as it does right after the Skripal scam. She didn't need any evidence there! But she's reportedly come around:

"We're rapidly reaching an understanding of what happened on the ground. All the indications are that the Syrian regime was responsible, and we'll be working with our closest allies to consider how we can ensure that those responsible are held to account, and also how we can prevent and deter the humanitarian catastrophe of the use of chemical weapons in the future."

Dress it up all you like, it's still a pig. Only a trained British liar like May could hype up not having any firm conclusion because no investigation has been carried out to the level of near certainty - all with the words "rapidly reaching", as if rapidly moving from nowhere to nowhere else is somehow significant.

No doubt she was presented with as much evidence re: Douma as she required re: Skripal - i.e., none.

May's spokesman declined to comment in the BBC's report.

Comment: Thankfully there are a few sane people with a voice in the UK. George Galloway, for instance: "If Theresa May takes Britain to war in Syria as the ally and the air force of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, Great Britain will die of shame and our brave pilots will be shot down over Syria by Russian anti-aircraft missile batteries. It's time today to tell your MP: 'Not in my name.'"

And ex ambassadors Peter Ford and Craig Murray:

"I don't think Assad is in the least worried that the inspectors will find out his guilt - he is probably not guilty on this occasion," he said. "We have to engage our brains as well as our emotions here, not be stampeded by those videos which are described as being unverified, but which by dint of being repeated over and over again come to acquire a spurious credibility," Ford added. "We have to ask ourselves what are the sources in this stampede to war?"

Radio presenter Gary Robertson was having none of it. He pushed back on Ford, telling the ex-ambassador that "Assad has form [bombing his own people], and there has been fairly conclusive proof that chemical agents have been used."

Ford replied: "The correct response is obviously to get inspectors on to the alleged sites of the alleged offences. In fact, in the last few hours Russia has offered to provide escorts for inspectors from the recognized body in this field - the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."

Ford's comments reflected the same concerns with intelligence sources that he expressed to the BBC a year ago."Based on previous experience, we can see that we cannot take on face value what the so-called intelligence experts tell us," he said, in reference to the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack.

"In August 2016, [the Jihadis] mounted a chlorine gas attack on civilians and they tried to make it look like a regime operation. Mark my words, [the jihadis will make it look like the regime did it] and it will get the warmongers coming to tell us that Assad is defying us and we must go in more heavily into Syria."

When questioned by Robertson as to what "would be the interest of [the jihadis] to stage these events?" A dumbfounded Ford responded that even "a child can see that the intention was to produce hysteria."

"Now the military action that we are on the point of taking, risking our own safety. What the jihadis have done is jerk our leash," he added.

Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray took to his blog on Wednesday, penning a scathing piece entitled 'The Four Horsemen Gallop By;' taking aim at Theresa May and her eager finger-pointing in the Skripal poisoning, and the media... which has moved on from the Salisbury attacks and "now focuses on an attack by chemical weapons in Douma."

"[It] 'could only be' by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is non-existent," Murray said.

"There is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more the evidence is scrutinized, the dodgier it seems. Finally, there is a massive difference between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply skeptical public, as shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.

"The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security Council authorization, any such action is illegal in any event.

"It is worth noting that the many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid, fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza."