UK ministers back action to deter Syrian chemical weapon use

[webfact]

UK ministers back action to deter Syrian chemical weapon use

By Guy Faulconbridge and David Milliken

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May walks out of 10 Downing Street in London, April 10, 2018. REUTERS/Hannah Mckay

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May won backing from her senior ministers to take unspecified action with the United States and France to deter further use of chemical weapons by Syria after a suspected poison gas attack on civilians.

 

After warning Russia on Wednesday of imminent military action, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he was holding meetings on Syria and expected to make decisions "fairly soon."

 

The White House said later that Trump and his national security team were continuing to assess intelligence and speak with allies, and that no final decisions had been made.

 

Russia has warned the West against attacking its Syrian ally President Bashar al-Assad, who is also supported by Iran, and says there is no evidence of a chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma near Damascus.

 

May recalled the ministers from their Easter holiday for the meeting in Downing Street to discuss Britain's response to what she has cast as a barbaric attack that cannot go unchallenged.

 

May told her senior ministers on Thursday that the attack in Douma showed a "deeply concerning" erosion of international legal norms barring the use of chemical weapons.

 

"Cabinet agreed on the need to take action to alleviate humanitarian distress and to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime," a spokeswoman for the prime minister said in a statement after the meeting.

 

Ministers also agreed that May should continue to work with the United States and France to come up with the right response.

 

The statement made no specific reference to military action.

 

Later, May's office said she had spoken with Trump by telephone, and that the two had agreed it was vital to challenge Assad's use of chemical weapons, and that they would continue to work closely together to do so.

 

The rising tension over the Douma attack demonstrates the volatile nature of the Syrian civil war, which started in March 2011 as an anti-Assad uprising but is now a proxy conflict involving a number of world and regional powers and a myriad of insurgent groups.

 

The attack was first reported by Syrian rebel group Jaish al-Islam on Saturday. Inspectors with the global chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, are due to investigate the incident.

 

USA VS RUSSIA?

 

The BBC said May was ready to give the go-ahead for Britain to take part in action led by the United States without seeking prior approval from parliament. Downing Street spokesmen repeatedly declined to comment on that report.

 

"The chemical weapons attack that took place on Saturday in Douma in Syria was a shocking and barbaric act," May told reporters on Wednesday. "All the indications are that the Syrian regime was responsible."

 

May is not obliged to win parliament's approval, but a non-binding constitutional convention to do so has been established since a 2003 vote on joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

 

It has been observed in subsequent military deployments in Libya and Iraq and many British lawmakers and voters are deeply sceptical of deepening involvement in the Syrian conflict.

 

Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said parliament should be consulted before May approved military action.

 

"Just imagine the scenario if an American missile shoots down a Russian plane, or vice-a-versa - where do we go from there?" Corbyn said.

 

A YouGov poll published on Thursday showed just one in five British voters supported a missile strike on Syria. The poll showed 43 percent of voters opposed such a strike and 34 percent did not know what should be done.

 

Britain has been launching air strikes in Syria from its military base in Cyprus, but only against targets linked to the Islamic State militant group.

 

Parliament voted down British military action against Assad's government in 2013, in an embarrassment for May's predecessor, David Cameron. That then deterred the U.S. administration of Barack Obama from similar action.

 

The war plans of British leaders have been complicated in recent years by the memory of Britain's 2003 decision to invade Iraq after asserting - wrongly, as it later turned out - that President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

 

But with less than a year to go until Britain leaves the European Union, May wants to deepen its "special relationship" with the United States with a wide-ranging free trade deal that would help cushion the impact of Brexit.

 

(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge and David Milliken, Editing by Toby Chopra and Rosalba O'Brien)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-13

[BuriramSam]

I guess I'm confused. Several years ago we were told a brilliant US President got Syria to give up their chemical weapons. Let me guess: that is true, but those pesky Russians replenished their supplies, right?

[sammieuk1]

What could possibly go wrong in this rubble strewn quagmire?

[PremiumLane]

Guess we have to help the Saudi backed Islamic forces, as Saudi kindly brought so many arms off us recently. 

[BuaBS]

Libya all over again ... only this time Syria has the backing of a nuclear superpower . Assad is a lucky man .

[evadgib]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cabinet-meeting-12-april-2018

[Morch]

3 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

I guess I'm confused. Several years ago we were told a brilliant US President got Syria to give up their chemical weapons. Let me guess: that is true, but those pesky Russians replenished their supplies, right?

 

Some of them chemicals weapons can be produced locally without much hustle. But then most posters commenting on these topics would be aware of that.

[serialK]

someone torpedo the brits ships and teach em' a lesson

[FritsSikkink]

Sure let's bomb more people in oblivion without waiting for the results of an inquiry which still has to start.

[bristolboy]

The question now is: Does Trump back action to deter Syrian chemical use?

Pentagon Urges Greater Caution on Imminent Strike Against Syria

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought on Thursday to slow down an imminent strike on Syria, reflecting mounting concerns at the Pentagon that a concerted bombing campaign could escalate into a wider conflict between Russia, Iran and the West.

During a closed-door White House meeting, officials said, Mr. Mattis pushed for more evidence of President Bashar al-Assad’s role in a suspected chemical attack last weekend that would assure the world that military action was necessary.

Despite the caution, two Defense Department officials predicted it would be difficult to pull back from punishing airstrikes, given President Trump’s threat on Twitter a day earlier of American missiles that “will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart.’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/politics/trump-syria-attack.html

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, serialK said:

someone torpedo the brits ships and teach em' a lesson

 

Guess the next post would be whining about "warmongers"....

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Sure let's bomb more people in oblivion without waiting for the results of an inquiry which still has to start.

 

Doubt targets discussed are not of military nature.

[FritsSikkink]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt targets discussed are not of military nature.

Like there are never civilians hit by bombs, only when the other team does it. 

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Like there are never civilians hit by bombs, only when the other team does it. 

 

No one claimed any such nonsense. Try harder. And if anything Western countries will often own up such mistakes, rather than issue all encompassing denials. That there may be civilian casualties is one thing, that they are not the prime target is another. You're trying to paint this as something it ain't.

[serialK]

54 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No one claimed any such nonsense. Try harder. And if anything Western countries will often own up such mistakes, rather than issue all encompassing denials. That there may be civilian casualties is one thing, that they are not the prime target is another. You're trying to paint this as something it ain't.

 

Western countries will deny it and try to get away with it unless the media pick up on it.

[BuriramSam]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Some of them chemicals weapons can be produced locally without much hustle. But then most posters commenting on these topics would be aware of that.

Yes I'm sure that's what happened. Because if the US government says something, you believe it for sure.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, serialK said:

 

Western countries will deny it and try to get away with it unless the media pick up on it.

 

Even so, that still better than their counterparts' standard reactions.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

Yes I'm sure that's what happened. Because if the US government says something, you believe it for sure.

 

Which part don't you believe? Syria being able to produce chemical weapons? Certain chemical weapons being easy enough to produce? Assad's forces using chemical weapons during the Syrian Civil War? Note that there was no mention of "US government" saying anything. Just your auto-deflection mode set to nonsense.

[bristolboy]

Here's a report from someone who interviewed people who were on the scene when the alleged bombing took place:

 

While much about the attack remains unclear, a New York Times review of more than 20 videos of its aftermath, an examination of flight records compiled by citizen observers, and interviews with a dozen residents, medics and rescue workers suggest that during a military push to break the will of Douma’s rebels, pro-government forces dropped charges bearing some kind of chemical compound that suffocated at least 43 people and left many more struggling to breathe...

Regardless of the munitions used, the attack worked. Hours later, as rescuers lined up bodies in the street, the rebels agreed to hand over the town and be bused with their families to another rebel-held area.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-douma.html

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No one claimed any such nonsense. Try harder. And if anything Western countries will often own up such mistakes, rather than issue all encompassing denials. That there may be civilian casualties is one thing, that they are not the prime target is another. You're trying to paint this as something it ain't.

 

Ah! Those old chestnuts 'civilian casualties' and 'not the prime target'. Or, to give them their correct euphemism, 'collateral damage' . We know, from vast esperience, that this collateral damage (which means death for many, life-changing injuries for many more) always occurs. So, yes, these civilians are being targeted. The bombs might not have their individiual names written on them, but they are still goung to die or be injured, and the people ordering their firing know this. And, what happens once the civilian death toll goes past the 60 - 70 alleged in the alleged chemical attack? That makes us worse than them (allegedly).

[dunroaming]

At the moment it is still all grandstanding.  May risks a lot if she unconditionally agrees to back Trump over this.

[dunroaming]

It must be possible to get proof of chemical weapons if they were used in Douma.  If it can be shown that Assad was responsible and that he did use those weapons then I believe there should be some sort of retaliation.  But as I said before I would prefer it if that retaliation was NOT part of a joint exercise with the USA.  Trump is unpredictable and unreliable and we should keep our distance from his lunacy.  By all means do something with the French but not with Trump.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Ah! Those old chestnuts 'civilian casualties' and 'not the prime target'. Or, to give them their correct euphemism, 'collateral damage' . We know, from vast esperience, that this collateral damage (which means death for many, life-changing injuries for many more) always occurs. So, yes, these civilians are being targeted. The bombs might not have their individiual names written on them, but they are still goung to die or be injured, and the people ordering their firing know this. And, what happens once the civilian death toll goes past the 60 - 70 alleged in the alleged chemical attack? That makes us worse than them (allegedly).

 

I don't recall you having such qualms with regard to civilian casualties caused by Russia or Syria. The usual "we know" co-opting, and the "collateral damage" which wasn't mentioned, are flimsy cover for making partisan claims.

 

Had civilians been "targeted", or even not factored in the considerations leading to attacks by Western countries, you can be assured that the resulting death toll would have been way higher. For reference, consult Russia and Syria air operations.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

It must be possible to get proof of chemical weapons if they were used in Douma.  If it can be shown that Assad was responsible and that he did use those weapons then I believe there should be some sort of retaliation.  But as I said before I would prefer it if that retaliation was NOT part of a joint exercise with the USA.  Trump is unpredictable and unreliable and we should keep our distance from his lunacy.  By all means do something with the French but not with Trump.

 

The sentiment is very understandable. Not the sort of guy I'd like to be associated with, or have by my side in a crisis (never mind a battle). It is a good question though, whether UK and French capabilities, by themselves or in tandem, are sufficient to carry out meaningful action. The teaming up thing is more about lending credibility, less to do with operational value.

[serialK]

They won't do anything now after the russian threat.......who wants to start ww3 over a fabricated chlorine attack.

[dunroaming]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The sentiment is very understandable. Not the sort of guy I'd like to be associated with, or have by my side in a crisis (never mind a battle). It is a good question though, whether UK and French capabilities, by themselves or in tandem, are sufficient to carry out meaningful action. The teaming up thing is more about lending credibility, less to do with operational value.

Good point. My concern is that we (the UK), by agreeing to joint action with the USA ,are then complicit in any over the top or ill thought out attack by Trump.  Even if we are not actually active in that attack.  I know I am p*ssing in the wind with this but I believe my concern is shared by many of my countrymen.  

[Chomper Higgot]

It seems the British have forgotten what happened the last time the UK went to war alongside the US over 'weapons of mass destruction'.

 

Or at least the PM and her cabinet choose to forget.

 

Leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, has reminded the PM of past mistakes and has challenged the PM that no decision for the UK to take military action in Syria should be made other than by vote of the UK Parliament. 

 

Regardless of your thoughts on Corbyn his advice here is sound.

[Basil B]

10 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

I guess I'm confused. Several years ago we were told a brilliant US President got Syria to give up their chemical weapons. Let me guess: that is true, but those pesky Russians replenished their supplies, right?

Depends on what chemicals are being used, hitech stuff like nerve agents would need sophisticated laboratories, but thing like mustard  gas or chlorine gas as was supposedly used could I assume be knocked up in a garden shed with easy to obtain ingredients. 

[dunroaming]

49 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Depends on what chemicals are being used, hitech stuff like nerve agents would need sophisticated laboratories, but thing like mustard  gas or chlorine gas as was supposedly used could I assume be knocked up in a garden shed with easy to obtain ingredients. 

Yes I think you are right but they are still banned and have a terrible effect on those who are exposed to them.  I do take the point though that these chemical weapons don't rely on being supplied by outside sources.

[IAMHERE]

Any attack over there could be a 'False Flag' , instigated by a USA agency. Just can not trust the intelligence agency's since they duped us with that false/fake information they fed Americans and the world to get us into Iraq.  We should have suspected after the Gulf of Tonkin False Flag event.