The US, UK and France claim they struck chemical weapon facilities in Syria.
The British Prime Minister said today she had authorised British forces to conduct ‘precision air-launched cruise missile strikes’ on Syria to degrade its chemical weapons capability…she added that there ‘was no other choice’.
Yet Britain joined the US led strikes based on unproven allegations and without Parliamentary approval, an action that was extremely reckless, since according Theresa May they were trying to blow up a chemical weapons depot
The war criminal said that the targets were a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research centre and a military bunker involved in alleged chemical weapons attacks.
She added that the UK is “confident” that air strikes on the suspected chemical weapons facilities had been successful.
So what does Mrs May think might have happened to all those chemical weapons when the facility was (allegedly) blown up?
Rob Slane reports:
But the fact that it was a fairly limited strike — compared to what it might have been — in which the majority of missiles failed to hit their targets, having been eliminated by Soviet-era air defences, does not in anyway absolve those who ordered the strike from the grave and reckless action they have taken and for which they are responsible. Not only did they authorise this action before an investigation had been carried out in Douma, and in fact hours before the OPCW inspectors were due there, they did so without consulting their respective legislative bodies, without knowing how many of their missiles would or would not hit their targets, or — and this is crucial — knowing for sure whether their actions would elicit a response from Russia.
In other words, if you live in Britain, France or America, you now know just how cheaply the leaders of your country hold your life, and the lives of your fellow countrymen. They have taken action which could have resulted — and might still result — in a direct clash with the Russian military, and while you have breath left in you, you must never forget this, and do all you can to hold these people to account for their lawless, reckless and enormously dangerous actions.
You must also remember that they did so not because they cared about ordinary Syrians, but because their diabolical attempts to topple the Syrian Government, by backing Islamic terrorist groups such as Jaysh al-Islam, has been thwarted.
But there is one more thing. Amongst the myriad of mind-boggling and often deceptive remarks made by Theresa May during her statement after the attacks, I was particularly struck by this:
“Together we have hit a specific and limited set of targets. They were a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research centre and a military bunker involved in chemical weapons attacks. Hitting these targets with the force that we have deployed will significantly degrade the Syrian Regime’s ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons.”
So the response to an alleged and unproven chemical weapons incident was to attempt to blow up alleged stockpiles of chemical weapons. I confess that I am not an expert in blowing up chemical weapons stockpiles, but it does seem to me to be a reckless and insane thing to do. If there really were stockpiles of chemical weapons in those places, exactly what guarantee could Donald and Theresa give that such chemicals would not then be released into the atmosphere? As I say, I’m not an expert in blowing up chemical weapons stockpiles — I doubt that there are many in the world who are — but it does seem to me at least possible that an action such as this is potentially catastrophic.
Of course, in all probability there were no chemical weapons there at all. But if we take her at her word, it seems that Theresa May has this to answer for: Not only did she authorised an attack on a sovereign state based on unproven allegations; not only did she fail to consult Parliament; not only did she risk a confrontation with Russia; she also risked the possibly disastrous release of chemical weapons into the atmosphere.
These are just some of the many reasons why this woman needs to be impeached by Parliament. It has never happened before, but it is possible. In fact, it is absolutely needful, not just in her case, but also to ensure that no Prime Minister ever acts so lawlessly and recklessly with so many lives again.
Latest posts by Niamh Harris (see all)
- Gucci Ridiculed Over Their $1,200 ‘Eco-Friendly’ Grass-Stained Jeans - September 22, 2020
- BLM’s ‘What We Believe’ Manifesto Vanishes From Website Ahead Of US Election - September 22, 2020
- Trump Dares Pelosi To Try To Impeach Him Again - September 22, 2020