( but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) If so – and circumstantial evidence suggests an investigation would be appropriate – then I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that very little of this entire affair is legal. Is it possible that the Russians were right when they predicted a fake chemical weapons attack in Syria, that would be used to justify air strikes on that country? Why would Theresa May want to sabotage the OPCW inspection? What could they find that the Tories would want to hide? So there was a reason to bomb the anti-venom factory – but only if the Tory government has been up to no good. Gracie Samuels 🌹#NotMyRacistPM #ToriesOutIn2Years April 15, 2018Īh. Theresa May spent £1.6 million on those strikes.Īpparently the so-called chemical weapons plants that were hit were empty and one was just a lab making antivenom for snakebites, but strangely, it was the lab which was going to be used by OPCW weapons inspectors, so why bomb that? £800.000 of UK taxpayers cash used to demolish it. Hit an empty snake venom antidote factory. … and an empty snake venom antidote factory, it seems. What exactly did Theresa May hit, anyway? The Barzah Scientific Research facility, that had a clean bill of health from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) last November… The attack on Syria was ILLEGAL under international law. The UN Charter 1945 Nuremberg is clear on' attacking sovereign states', Theresa May had no UN mandate & unlike Blair, she didn't bother with a Parliamentary vote. Is it because Macron's involvement doesn't reinforce his "America the bogeyman" narrative?
I note with interest that Jeremy Corbyn makes no mention of France in his statement about military action in Syria. This, as far as I know, prohibits attacks on sovereign countries except in self-defence or in pursuit of a UN Security Council resolution authorising them. I should imagine his basis for saying so lies in international law. Here’s the appropriate response – from Mail columnist Peter Hitchens, who is doing good work on this matter:ġ. What is Jeremy Corbyn’s basis for saying the strikes were “legally questionable”, unless he really is saying Assad was not responsible for Douma? This was a legal intervention, on humanitarian grounds. Mrs May has yet to respond – although some others have spoken up for her: The UK Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, not to the whims of a US President.” He also stated: “As I said I believe that Parliament should have been consulted and voted on the matter.
#The war in syria vox youtube full
I would therefore be grateful if you would publish this advice in full today.”
“You assured me that the Attorney General had given clear legal advice approving the action. “I believe the action was legally questionable, and this morning the UN Secretary General has said as much, reiterating that all countries must act in line with the UN Charter. UK Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn used much plainer language. The demand for all four nations to put away their bullets and bombs and find a peaceful solution could not be clearer. I call on the members of the Security Council to unite and exercise that responsibility.” The United States, the UK and France are all members of the security council, along with Russia – which supports the Syrian government. “The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
“There’s an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general,” he stated, implying that the United States, the UK and France had not. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres made a carefully-worded statement on the strikes that could not hide his opinion. The case against the legality of the air strikes Theresa May ordered in Syria is growing. Liar: Theresa May is not being straight with you about her reasons for ordering air strikes on Syria.
0 kommentar(er)
