Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by mat, 14 Apr 2018 at 2:04 AM.
Why wouldn’t they let them in if they conclude Assad is not to blame or it cannot be proved one way or the other this is to their benefit no?
He posts on here quite a bit but I haven’t worked out which one of our conspiracy nuts he is, maybe he has multiple accounts.
Like everyone else in this story he has an agenda but as he has lived in Beirut for 30 years Fisk has forgotten more about the middle east than May Macron et al have ever known
Not so much:
France, meanwhile, has said it has “proof” chemical weapons were used, and US media have quoted sources saying urine and blood tests showed this too. The WHO has said its partners on the ground treated 500 patients “exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”.
At the same time, inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are currently blocked from coming here to the site of the alleged gas attack themselves
According to May's speech today, the inspectors cannot conclude who was to blame for the attack. They're there to establish whether there was an attack and whether it involved chemical weapons (contrary to the Syrian position).
Well they aren’t allowed for a start as the last time they did, Russia threw a thrombie in the U.N. and used it’s veto to ensure that they are only allowed to conclude an attack took place and not to speculate on who fired the stuff.
Odd that they’d feel that way I’m sure everyone will agree.
So what disadvantage are the inspectors to Assad?
Well the Russian position is now that no chemical attack took place and they were all actors, certainly according to the Russian General Kiam was quoting yesterday.
They'd be able to state that a chemical attack happened, exposing Assad's position as a lie.