wait i thought the russians wanted us to send inspectors…
That was the Syrians.
i saw on one of the news reports that Russia wanted it investigated but wanted no one blamed.
ive seen so many reports now though its all a bit of a blur.
It is indeed a blur, Harry mate. Maybe we should shut the door on Syria, the Russes, Trump, Treeza & Co and enjoy the weekend, the sun has come out to play here!
I’ve begun to cut the grass and trim some hedge, and cut some flab. Bon week-end à tous !
same here dogs all romping round not a care in the world.
What I don’t get about the whole chemical weapon issue is that - it would seem to be ok to kill people in lots of other ways so long as it’s not chemical weapons…behead them, shoot them, strangle them, hack them to death, bomb them, drown them, blow them out of the sky - but just don’t use chemical weapons! Seems a bit perverse in my tiny mind…:- Weird world…’‘let’s go out there and kill a few people but just don’t use chemical weapons on the poor sods who we’ve targeted to die anyway.’’ I don’t suppose the poor sods care how they died - the end result is the same
…and if conventional weapons had been used to kill people in Douma, presumably today’s air strikes wouldn’t have happened…bizarre.
Yep - I just can’t work it out. I imagine a planning meeting that goes a bit like…
‘’ let’s go and kill some people , but let’s not use anything too nasty…’’
Trump / May talk about people dying screaming in pain, gasping for air, foaming at the mouth. How is that relevant? Guess what happens in the end ? - They die.
Was napalm classed as chemical, that was just a tad horrific way ‘to go’, I would say
Horrendous Bill - another reason why I just don’t get the current obsession with chemical weapons - all these things have the same end result. Presumably if you’re prepared to kill people you can’t really be that bothered how they die. Am I missing something?
I know…great idea…let’s kill people nicely…
Possibly because it’s easier to stage, kiddies foaming at the mouth etc. can be filmed and shown around the world. Even Fox news would baulk at screening babies with no heads, or little girls blown in half, but that can’t be mocked up, can it? It pays to be sceptical, I reckon, and to ask sceptical questions at times like this. Odd that we haven’t seen any pictures of chemical bombs, and please don’t tell me they wouldn’t be found if they had been delivered by helicopter as claimed.
there are plenty of missing evidence accounts, we will never know the truth though. Even if the media on both sides learns the truth it will never be told they all have their own agenda and what new they want to report.
always remember my friend being interviewed. they wanted to juice up their comments because it was not juicy enough or what they wanted.
This is the French assessment of the chemical attack
Theresa May has used the parliamentary recession to go ahead because if she waited she might lose a vote.
I feel that she will bring down the wrath of those who feel that she is too keen to ignore parliament whenever she feels it is to her advantage.
Perhaps this will actually be an advantage to those MP’s who are keen the hold her to account over Brexit.
Think it was brought in after the first world war and as been followed ever since.
Hi Michael - yes I heard that today. Any ideas why though? Is there a good way to kill?
History tells us that the Germans were the first to use Phosgene gas which was responsible for 85% of all chemical gas deaths and the allies were quick to follow in using it from about 1915 onwards, do not know the reason why after the war finished that they banned the use of it could be that they did not know how to treat it.
Like you write none of it makes any sense, a kill is a kill.
and she… a vicar’s daughter no less. Perhaps she’ll be a true hypocrite and seek forgiveness in her local church tomorrow…
No critcism of Macron?
It was first used by the British at the battle of Loos.