Weird Granny Slater wrote:FWIW if I had no uncomfortable questions to ponder for breakfast I wouldn't bother getting up of a morning. And I'm with you on one thing: the complexity.
But, two things. First, back to logic. It certainly is not a 'truth', inconvenient or otherwise, that events in 2013 'directly led to' today's situation: it is simply a claim (i.e. an opinion) based on the false logic that had there been some kind of (unspecified) 'intervention' in 2013 there would have been no reoccurrence. History isn't a logical affair (unless you're a marxist, and I doubt that). But of course there was intervention: the apparent destruction of Syria's chemical weapons (note my use of 'apparent' there).
Second, there have been numerous reports of the use of chemical weapons by both government and opposition forces in the Syrian civil war (including by the jihadist opposition supported by the UK). The selectivity of our outrage both undermines our (moral) case (remember May's 'barbarism' reaction) and points to other motives which reflect the West's ambitions in the area.
Firstly, I think it is fairly sound to logic to link the events of 2013 to today's situation, indeed I can't see how they can be separated. Parliament's decision not to condemn the use of chemical weapons on civilians caused stalled any kind of action being considered, and created a vacuum which Putin was delighted to fill. In doing so, the Syrian civil war swung firmly in Asaad's favour, due to the backing of Iran and Russia. That is not flawed logic, that is pretty straightforward logic. To try to disconnect the two situations seems like a convenient way of downplaying the consequences of the 2013 vote.
Secondly, I have been clear that I believe we should hold to account anyone who uses chemical weapons. We should not turn a blind eye to their use by anyone, as it sends out all the wrong messages.