May’s hypocrisy: Use of UK-sold chemical weapons in Syria gives her an opportunity for mass murder

This is classic ‘cycle of hate’ behaviour.

The UK sold several chemical weapons ingredients to Syria, back in 2012/13 – with explicit approval from then-prime minister David Cameron.

It followed the sale of huge amounts of other ingredients in the 1980s.

It seems those ingredients have been turned into weapons and used on the people of Douma, in Syria.

Now the UK government, in an act of enormous hypocrisy, wants to join Donald Trump’s USA in a reprisal bombing against that country.

Mrs May said the international community needed to uphold the worldwide ban on chemical weapons – which is outrageous, considering our government’s effort to undermine it.

As UK citizens, we can only be nauseated by Mrs May’s behaviour.

This Site warned that we would be in exactly this situation five years ago.

I wrote: “In January 2012, 10 months after violence erupted in Syria, [then-business secretary] Vince Cable licensed the exporting of potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride to the Syrian government – both chemicals being ingredients of nerve gas.

“The chemicals were sold under licences that specified they should be used for making aluminium structures like window frames – but the government has refused to identify the licence holders. Dodgy!

“This means that, in the same way as the United States with Iraq, it is entirely possible that the [Conservative/Liberal Democrat] Coalition government wanted British troops to attack Syria in response to a situation that the Coalition government created!”

The fly in current UK prime minister Theresa May’s ointment at the moment is Russia, which supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has blocked US-led calls for an investigation into the chemical attack. Russia’s own proposal did not gain enough votes.

The US proposal would have launched an independent investigation that would have assigned blame to a perpetrator. The Russians wanted a UN-led investigation, but with the results reviewed by Russia for “acceptance” before being publicised.

Both proposals were flawed. Russia’s demand for the ability to censor the results of an investigation is unacceptable – but then, why should the US (and the UK) be permitted to assign blame solely to Syria for an attack in which they chemical weapons were used that were made from our products?

Boris Johnson, who is still (amazingly) clinging on to his role as the UK’s foreign secretary, has leapt in to offer his biased view:

Chemical attacks made possible by the actions of your government, Mr Johnson.

The latest information is that Donald Trump is planning to bomb Syria anyway. Russia seems unlikely to tolerate any such action.

Meanwhile, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for a ceasefire and a political solution, rather than – as Susan Rees describes below, “bomb first, talk later”. He is the only leader who is making sense.

https://twitter.com/OWLowery/status/983755108013010951

And what good will more bombing achieve?

These words seem prophetic, in the light of Mr Trump’s latest bit of sabre-rattling:

So, a big win for Theresa May: Her government sold the ingredients of chemical weapons to Syria; those ingredients were used in an attack that gives us an opportunity to attack Syria; and if Jeremy Corbyn opposes such an attack, she can smear him as an unpatriotic peacenik.

And the only cost will be thousands of Syrian lives and the possibility of conflict with Russia – which is a nuclear superpower, let’s not forget!

As UK citizens, we can only be nauseated by Mrs May’s behaviour. Tory political decisions have created this situation and she is revelling in the opportunity to commit mass murder.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

12 thoughts on “May’s hypocrisy: Use of UK-sold chemical weapons in Syria gives her an opportunity for mass murder

  1. John Goodman

    This is as disgraceful as the warmongering of the right wing establishment. You have provided no evidence for your allegations both in 2013 and for the Douma event that is highly suspect. Syrian authorities found no evidence of toxic chemicals or of victims in local hospitals, and I am pretty sure the OPCW will find none. The OPCW has never found any evidence to suggest Assad is using chemical weapons. Unfortunately it is all too easy to fake these events to justify fake humanitarian interventions and attempts to remove yet another legitimate and democratically elected goverment that US and UK corporations want removed. You are no better than the Daily Mail.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I’m not sure what point you are making.
      Are you trying to suggest that we should take at face value a claim by Syria that Syria has not used chemical weapons? That’s unrealistic. You say you are sure the OPCW will find no evidence of the use of chemical weapons – perhaps you should have waited until that happened before commenting.
      You suggest the event was faked in order to justify fake humanitarianism, but the whole point was that it was the UK who sold the ingredients, in order to be able to say that Syria had the capability to create chemical weapons and thereby justify the UK taking military action. So it is the UK government making the assertion you find so offensive, in either case, in order to take the action you find so offensive.
      You have no argument with me at all.

  2. Pat Sheehan

    ‘Conseratives’! Arms R Us: purveyors of pain: dealers in death: all in it together!

  3. Rik

    What is it with this megalomaniac government?? It’s ok for them when the ICBMs are on tbe way here as they have nice cosy bunkers to retire in like rats deserting a sinking ship while we are turned into ashes & shadows…

  4. Rik

    Oh I forgot to say… Tories turn my stomach…
    I hate paying for a tv license with this biased BBC… i only watch PMQs on a Wednesday & that’s it.. I do NOT watch any other stuff on BBC
    & that’s the truth

  5. NickL

    It is the long term goal of the Oligarchs to control Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen for the untapped mineral wealth. That is why they are trying to destabilise these countries.
    What we are seeing at the moment in Syria is a renewed effort to destabilise the country that the Russians have almost restabilised. The west are now playing a very dangerous game of deceit which the Russians are seeing through. Is there going to be another war based on misleading the world just like Iraq, the answer is more that likely yes.

  6. rollo57

    A couple of points come to mind;

    1. Since we last sold CW’s to Syria, they have had them all destroyed and confirmed by OPCW, the same group who UK have just relied on to try and blame Russia.

    2. It’s been recorded that Chemical Weapons were found in East Ghouta, mostly British and German origin, but these were in ‘rebel Command post. occupied by British, American and Israeli officers.

    3. The link below also indicates that Skripal was working at Porton Down, which throws an entirely different light on this ‘incident’!

    “American, British and Israeli military personnel captured in Syria have confirmed they were ordered to stage chemical attacks in East Ghouta by their governments.”

    “The Syrian Arab Army and with the help of Russia, captured a shipment of chemical weapons destined for the Eastern Ghouta. These were British weapons produced at Porton Down in Salisbury.

    Russia suspects that the Skripal incident is related as by their records, Skiripal was working at Porton Down as a chemical weapons trafficker in partnership with a Ukrainian firm. Russia denies attacking Skripal but admits he was under surveillance for his activities involving support of terrorism in Syria and arms trafficking.

    Russia also confirms that there are British, American, Israeli and Saudi intelligence officers who were caught by the Syrian army in one of the heavily fortified operations rooms during the invasion of the Syrian army and its allies of the East Ghouta.”

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/04/11/redux-the-proofs-the-viral-expose-of-those-behind-the-syrian-gas-attack/

  7. Francis Last

    3 points you miss. 1. The chemicals never made it to Syria, the licences were blocked by UN sanctions. 2. The licences were authorised by Vince Cable (of the lib dems) and not Cameron. 3. The chemicals are indeed fairly common and do have many industrial uses. I hate the Tories as much as any other decent human but your narrative is misleading.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      My understanding is that the chemicals DID get to Syria. If you have proof of the opposite, please show it. Yes, we all know Vince Cable authorised the licences in his capacity as David Cameron’s business secretary – as we also know the chemicals were provided for other uses. That doesn’t mean they were put to those uses.

  8. Brian

    At the UN, Russia vetoed the US proposals regarding the OPCW, as these would have led to the analysis being conducted outside of Syria, using samples sent from the “attack sites”.
    A watertight process don’t you think? i mean, what could go wrong?

Comments are closed.