When it comes to deep cynicism in relation to military interventions in the middle east I think you'll find it’s the efforts of a certain Mr Blair that have had the deepest and most lasting impact on the attitude of the British public. You're right about the evidence though, I remembered things incorrectly. There are uncertainties about the samples though. The OPCW report (which can be seen here) says of the samples (paragraph 3.66) "the entire chain of custody could not be categorically verified" and (at paragraph 3.45) that samples were received "depending on the source, between 1 week and 2 months after the incident". So the samples may or may not be accounted for during the time they were in an area controlled by an Islamist terror group who would have an obvious motive to discredit Assad. In summary, there is no conclusive evidence. It's also not just the Russians raising questions. A separate report from the UN talked about how a hazmat team turned up in the area and claimed to have detected the presence of sarin using a device that can't detect sarin and referred to inappropriate and unprofessional methods used by first responders and those collecting samples. So there are plenty of reasons not to be certain about this. Having said all that the question of whether it's really Assad using these weapons is almost a side issue for me. For the sake of argument let's say it's all true and Assad is using these chemical weapons. Given the significant number of Islamist terrorists in the area and our feeble record when it comes to these interventions why on earth would anyone believe that a military intervention would have a positive outcome? Chances are it'll either lead to either another Iraq or another Libya.
I've always wanted to like Diane Abbott. She gained much respect from me when I learnt she'd ridden pillion on Corbin's CZ250 during his european holiday in the 70s. I owned one and they are by far the least able and most uncomfortable bike I ever rode. Two up must be a bloody nightmare. But her presentation on R4s Today this morning was again weak and vague. It's not what she says, though some of that is a bit silly, it's the way she comes across. Just me maybe.
Irrespective of the details of this particular horror, all I'm pointing out is that Russian strategy rests on the fact that distrust in your own government is a victory for them. And they are winning because people have gone from "believe your democratic government* to tell the truth in general" to "disbelieve every single thing your government says until it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt". You are playing into their hands if you take that attitude. There is literally no way anyone could *prove* to you that Assad carried out nerve agent attacks. Think that through and you'll realise it's true. All you have to do is look at the bollocks spouted over "Why didn't the Russian spy die in Salisbury if the nerve agent was so potent?" to realise that the general public doesn't have any expertise or the access to the required facts to make a categorical judgment. Additionally, information from other, non-public, sources will never ever be available to you. Evidence from, say, phone intercepts or from intelligence assets will not end up in the public eye. How are you meant to deal with that uncertainty? To take it to a daft level to prove a point, if someone at MI5 bugged Putin's phone and recorded him saying "release the nerve agents at co-ordinates X and Y at zz00 hours", you would have absolute certainty of Russian involvement but no way of saying so. On the last point I'm entirely with you. I see no benefit whatsoever to a military attack. Theresa May is falling onto the bandwagon in a way that disturbs me greatly. She's an idiot. Unusually, I'm with the Telegraph on this: Vin * I'd like to stress that I don't consider believing a word Boris Johnson says to be reliable under any circumstances.
Think that's more cause politicians lie all the time and people just do not trust politicians rather than Russia has us believing that. Apart from corbyn (who even advocates waiting) who really trusts what politicians say nowadays from party manifestos to them pretending that aren't in it all for themselves. I certainly dontd
Who was it that drew all those straight lines across the desert and created countries full of apposing tribes who would be forever fighting and then bomb them for fighting?
Oh ****. My surname is Bathgate from where my ancestors derive (in Scotland). I've just read up on the history of crude oil and apparently the first oil refinery was built in Bathgate, West Lothian in 1851. It's probably all my fault.
Britain and France for the most part. I think the point may be that our two nations in particular may not be in the best position to help solve a problem we were complicit in creating, and subsequently excacerbating.
How far back in time do we have to go before we are allowed to become involved in any way? Colonial guilt from a century ago is hardly a reason not to try to help to resolve matters. (And I state again that by "help" I don't mean what we seem to be heading towards - I mean "help" in the way that a stable democracy can help). By the same measure we should have no say anywhere in Africa, the entire subcontinent, the West Indies, Singapore, Malaysia, Burma, the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. We shouldn't even be dealing with France or Spain - we've actually fought them in the past. Vin
Meanwhile, at some point (possibly today) this man is going to make a decision as to whether or not to drop bombs on Syria. Vin
I'm not advocating colonial guilt. I am, however, questioning to what extent our historic involvement in the region would undermine any trust other parties may have in our ability to act as honest brokers in the future. I would suggest that the United Nations might be a better vehicle for policing conflict around the world than a UK/USA/French axis. Especially an axis headed by a madman with the attention span of a gnat.
I'm not talking about whether the government can be trusted in general, I'm talking about this specific case. I don't have any reason to think the UK government or intelligence services are lying. There's every chance they may be wrong though, just as they've been wrong in the past. I don't think the Salisbury attack is really comparable to anything that happens in Syria. In the case of an attack that's taken place within the UK I'm quite happy to accept that the UK government and UK intelligence services may be very well informed and that their investigations could potentially bring a degree of clarity to the situation. I've said more than once that the most likely explanation for the Salisbury attack is that it was carried out by (or on the orders of) the Russian government. Other explanations are just about possible but most are incredibly unlikely. That's not the case in Syria though, the alleged attack took place in an area currently controlled by an Islamist terror group - a group that has itself been accused of using chemical weapons. The whole area is in total chaos so there are far more possible explanations. The consequences and nature of the suggested response are also important. The reasonably controlled and limited response to Salisbury is fine - I have no problem supporting the expulsion of diplomats and imposition of sanctions when something like Salisbury seems likely to have been carried out by Russia even if it's not quite proven. I'm not prepared to support military action on that basis though. You may be right about proving conclusively that it was Assad but I used that phrase because people and news reports are talking as though it had been conclusively proved Assad was responsible. That has not been proven, at least not yet. There could certainly be more evidence than there is now. As far as I'm aware there have been no independent, unbiased reports regarding this incident. The closest independent reporters are nowhere near where this happened. As for intelligence, there will always be information that can't be released to the public but intelligence agencies are not infallible and shouldn't be treated as though they are. We know that the intelligence that we relied on before the Iraq war was totally unreliable (or possibly made up) so I don't think anyone should be able to justify starting a war by simply saying "intelligence". I see no reason why we should automatically assume any undisclosed intelligence here would be more reliable than the Iraqi WMD intelligence given that the alleged attack has taken place in a chaotic war zone.
