Theresa May has decided to intervene in Syria

theresa MAY took the decision to join France and the US in bombing Syria, in a video posted on social media she claims that it is going to a ‘limited and targeted strike’ to deter Assad and others in the future from using chemical weapons. She also claims that it is to help the children of Syria and it is in the best interest for British security.

On the 7th April, reports emerged from Douma in Syria that a chemical weapons attack had taken place, very quickly the US pinned the blame on Bashar al-Assad and just 7 days later, the coalition of the US, UK and France decided to bomb Syria.

Comments on the PM’s statement

“I have authorised British armed forces to conduct co-ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use.”

Firstly, it was the UK who helped Assad’s father develop the chemical weapons in the 80s, secondly, there has been no evidence that Assad has carried out several chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the only evidence that has been brought forward only points the finger rather than definitively state that it was Assad.

Lastly, the government have been saying since the election that there is no money for other services yet the PM is able to find the money when some murdering needs to be done.

“In Douma, last Saturday a chemical weapons attack killed up to 75 people, including young children, in circumstances of pure horror.”

There is no definitive evidence that even props up the claim that a chemical weapons attack even took place. There are reports from people on the ground, civilian, saying that nothing of the sort happened. The fact that she claims to be fighting for children’s lives yet is happy to allow the Israeli government to imprison and torture children, says a lot more about her flexible morality.

Although, I guess it is easy to use the children card if you want to bomb another region.

“The Syrian Regime has a history of using chemical weapons against its own people in the most cruel and abhorrent way.”

See point 1 and 2, there is no evidence to support definitively that Assad is responsible. Furthermore, they have taken 7 days to be able to identify the chemical, just 7 days. Processes of this nature tend to take long unless you know the specific aspects you are looking for.

“This persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped…we cannot allow the erosion of the international norm that prevents the use of these weapons.”

She is right in the sense that this persistent pattern of behaviour must be stopped but she aimed it at the wrong country.

This is pattern of behaviour by the west to invade or bomb other nations because they don’t get along with the regimes is absurd. Plus, she says that we must prevent these weapons becoming the Norm. The police are issued with tear gas, which is banned by the UN in use during warfare but yet is allowed to be used on the streets of Britain against protesters.

“We have sought to use every possible diplomatic channel to achieve this.”

You have managed to use every avenue of communication with Assad, Russia and their allies in 7 days? No wonder the government think they can negotiate Brexit trade deals in less than two years. It is also hardly surprising that the Russians would veto an independent investigation set by the United Nations considering the UN largely goes on what the US do anyway and have been historically anti-Russian, not saying they are good but there has always been significant bias.

She fails to mention that this wasn’t ratified by the UNSC and the use of military is illegal.

Rhetoric and propaganda

The statement itself does go on longer but I have picked out specific points to highlight how ridiculous a decision this is by the PM. She further claims that this isn’t about intervening in a civil war, yet the supposed chemical attack was done on rebels during the Syrian civil war…so, this is intervening in the civil war.

She continues with same rhetoric of thoughts to servicemen and women, clear signal being sent, and ended with there is no preferred alternative and upholding global rules and keeping us safe etc. However, history teaches us that these kinds of interventions only exacerbate things.

One last point, she again claims that she “didn’t take the decision lightly”. Yet, it only took 7 days, just a week, to decide to bomb another country and potentially inflicting more damage and increasing the death rate of innocent civilians. Nevertheless, the British government is firmly behind the US president, Donald Trump, who has already told the Syrians and Russians that missiles "are coming".