CAN someone please explain to me what the UK’s justification is, legal or moral, for the air strikes on Syrian bases?

If it was to wipe out sites where chemical weapons were allegedly stored and thus prevent further damage caused by noxious gas, what can the effect of bombing be but to damage gas canisters or other containers of poisonous gas which would leak and affect human life and health in the vicinity? Does such irresponsible action not make the UK, the US and France as culpable as the Syrian regime?

If, as we are told, sufficient time was given to allow the Syrian regime to move poisonous gas canisters or the means of making poisonous gas from these bases in Damascus, what then is the purpose of bombing empty army bases? It is simply not enough to say that collateral damage to civilians was minimised by “pinpoint” attacks.

As I understand it, there are three reasons recognised under international law for launching armed intervention against a foreign power:

1. When a state is under immediate threat of armed aggression by an enemy belligerent,

2. When the UN Security Council authorises such an attack, and

3. For humanitarian reasons when the population of another state is being massacred by its government, which is internationally recognised as a murderous regime and such intervention is authorised by the United Nations.

As far as 2 and 3 are concerned, I understand that authority was sought from the UN Security Council by first seeking an international investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria in Douma. This was blocked by the Russians, who pointed out that just such an investigation was under way by the internationally recognised body for conducting such investigations – namely the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The Russian position seems to have been seen as correct by Germany and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the UK seems to take the view that UN permission is not necessary in an emergency. This view is without legal basis.

We have already intervened in three countries – Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – to unseat unsavoury regimes (and “we” includes Russia) and all we have achieved is make life even more intolerable for the unfortunate people who live there.

Alexandra MacRae

THE attack on Syria by Washington and her puppet states of Britain and France was a flagrant breach of international law.

It was an unprovoked act of aggression against a sovereign state who had not attacked or threatened any of the belligerents. According to the Nuremburg tribunal, the supreme international crime is aggression. An utterly corrupt and dishonest Western media promoted the government claims without producing any evidence to substantiate them.

US officials and the media tell us that the illegal US missile attack on Syria destroyed chemical weapons sites where chlorine and sarin are stored/manufactured. If this were true, would not a lethal cloud have been released that would have taken the lives of far more people than claimed in the alleged Syrian chemical attack on Douma? Would not the US missile attack be identical to a chemical weapons attack and thus place the US and its vassals in the same category as Washington is attempting to place Assad and Putin?

There is no question that had any Russian personal been killed it would have brought about relation and escalation. The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime, the continued existence of life on earth is very much in quest.

Alan Hinnrichs

WHAT was the real plot behind Saturday’s attack on Syria? Will it shorten the civil war? NO. Will it bring the opposing factions to the negotiating table? NO. Will it force Assad to change tactics? NO. Will it improve conditions for people who just want to get on with their lives? NO.

Why would Assad use chemical weapons when by all accounts his and Russia’s combined forces were within hours of reclaiming Douma?

The presence of Russia in the Middle East is clearly of great concern to the Western allies and also to Israel. So was the real reason a demonstration to Russia of the “fire-power” the West could mobilise, or was it something more sinister?

Mike Underwood

I SETTLED down as usual to the Sunday Herald’s crossword but was soon met with a problem. 30 Across: “Westminster is, Holyrood is not (9 letters)”. USELESS didn’t fit. WARMONGER didn’t suit answers to other clues. INCOMPETENT too long. ENGLISH still short. BRAYING, no.

I’ll have to settle for WARMONGER and assume my answers to other clues are wrong. Can anyone else suggest the answer?

Watt Smillie