Anyone who has been paying attention for the last few weeks must have noticed that the Tory government has launched a sustained ideological attack on the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
This UK establishment attack on the Nobel Peace Prize winning organisation seemed to begin as a means of having a dig at Jeremy Corbyn over his insistence that the rules of the Chemical Weapons Convention should be followed in relation to the Salisbury poisoning.
Seeing Tories and the yapping dogs of the mainstream press attacking and ridiculing the OPCW seemed like the latest absurd manifestation of the anti-Corbyn agenda. It seemed that people were so unhinged in their desperation to criticise Corbyn that they'd actually resort to demeaning and ridiculing an organisation that is dedicated to ridding the world of chemical and biological weapons in order to score points against him.
But then the Syria airstrikes made it absolutely clear that this is way bigger than the myopic anti-Corbyn agenda of the British establishment class, these people have undeniably declared some kind of crazed ideological war on the OPCW.
The first thing that a lot of people noticed was that Theresa May rushed the decision to carry out airstrikes to jump the gun on the OPCW inspectors who were making their way to Douma in order to investigate the alleged chemical weapons attack.
But it doesn't stop there, not only did Theresa May deliberately undermine the OPCW by attacking before their inspectors could establish the facts about her stated justification for the attack, the targets of the attack were Syrian government facilities that had been given the all clear by the OPCW just weeks before.
Claiming that OPCW approved facilities are actually chemical weapons factories and then destroying them is about the most blatant way of undermining the authority of the OPCW you could imagine, especially if it turns out that the UK had intelligence that the site was a chemical weapons plant and they refused to share their information with the OPCW so they could investigate.
And then the UK envoy to the OPCW Peter Wilson has come out swinging to attack the institution with claims that "the time has come for all members of this executive council to take a stand. Too many duck the responsibility that comes with being a member of this council".
What can he possibly mean by this? That the OPCW should come out in support of airstrikes against facilities they green-lighted just weeks beforehand based on an alleged chemical weapons attack they weren't even allowed to investigate before the attacks were launched?
It's as if the UK establishment are desperate to attack and undermine the OPCW because they want to appoint themselves the ultimate moral arbiters on chemical weapons.
They want to be able to launch military attacks against one regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons without presenting their evidence, and without consulting parliament, yet turn a total blind eye when their allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States) use chemical weapons on civilians.
And perhaps the most ridiculous facet of this British establishment drive to undermine the OPCW and anoint themselves the ultimate moral arbiters of chemical weapons use, is that as recently as 2012 the UK government granted export licences for the sale of Sarin precursor chemicals to Syria!
Of course the UK establishment will try to use misdirection tactics to dress this up as an "us vs them" "good vs evil" conflict between Britain and the baddies ("if you scrutinise us you're siding with Putin/Assad" type nonsense). But it's obvious to anyone who is not a fool that the real debates should be raging over whether the Prime Minister gets to cynically bypass parliament to launch military attacks because she fears she'd lose the vote, and why the UK establishment suddenly seem so hellbent on attacking, sidelining, obstructing, and undermining the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
It really is quite simple: If our political establishment class are waging an ideological war against a Nobel Peace Prize winning organisation which is dedicated to the eradication of chemical and biological weapons, maybe, just maybe, they might not be quite the good guys they're trying to portray themselves as?
Another Angry Voice is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.
On April 14th 2018 Theresa May cynically bypassed parliament and ignored public opinion in order to join forces with the most unpopular and unstable US President in history and launch air strikes in Syria. And she did this in the full knowledge that she was jumping the gun by attacking before the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors could get to Douma and carry out their work.
In doing this she tore up the longstanding convention that British leaders seek democratic approval for military action (unless the UK is under immediate threat) and totally abandoned the principle that it's important for our political leaders to present the evidence to justify our nation's actions.
If the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma was carried out by Assad's forces, then what would have been the harm in allowing the OPCW inspectors to do their work to prove it before the airstrikes were launched?
Surely carefully targeted airstrikes carried out on the basis of a democratic vote, and justified by independent OPCW evidence would have carried vastly more moral authority than rushed airstrikes against inexplicable targets?
When I say inexplicable targets, I'm talking about the destruction of the Barzah Scientific Research Centre near Damascus. Just three weeks before the site was destroyed by airstrikes, the OPCW announced that there was no chemical or biological weapons production at the site. Yet the Tory propaganda machine is trying to pass off this attack as the "targeting of a chemical weapons site".
So not only did Theresa May jump the gun on OPCW inspections on the alleged chemical weapons attack at Douma that she used as justification for these airstrikes, she also authorised attacks against a site that had been given a clean bill of health by the same OPCW organisation just three weeks ago.
By claiming that the Barzah site was a chemical weapons facility Theresa May and the Tory propaganda machine have clearly and undeniably undermined the work of the OPCW by making out that they're too incompetent to do their jobs properly.
After the OPCW-undermining attack on Barzah, Theresa May had the absolute cheek to state that "when the global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat, we must take a stand to defend them".
It's pretty difficult to imagine a more threatening attack on the rules and standards that keep us safe than these Tory and UK establishment attacks on the work and findings of the OPCW and the principles of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Our government is systematically undermining the work of the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and what's even more shocking than that is that they're using Orwellian reality-reversal tactics to pretend that their airstrikes are actually part of the fight against chemical weapons!
The Tories are trying to make the case that in order to fight against chemical weapons it's necessary to sideline and undermine the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and to ignore the principles of the Chemical Weapons Convention!
And what's probably most incredible of all is that in 2012 the Tories granted export licences for the sale of Sarin precursor chemicals to Syria.
So they actually sold Assad chemical weapons ingredients, and now just a few years later they're sidelining and undermining the OPCW in order to pretend that they're the great moral authority of chemical weapons!
Surely it's time to take a stand, say enough of your bullshit, and defend the internationally agreed body of chemical weapons experts against this absolute rabble of evidence-denying, democracy-defying, war-mongering Tories?
Another Angry Voice is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.
There seems to be an awful lot of confusion about the meaning of the Porton Down announcement that they've been unable to prove that the Salisbury nerve agent was produced in Russia.
The announcement in no way indicates that Russians weren't responsible for the attack, it just means that the scientists who analysed the nerve agent couldn't conclusively prove that it was produced in Russia.
What the announcement does do is expose the fact that Boris Johnson lied. He lied when he said that Proton Down experts told him that there was "no doubt" that the nerve agent was produced in Russia, and the Foreign Office lied when they issued (a now hastily deleted) Tweet blaming Russia for the production of the nerve agent.
the announcement also vindicated Jeremy Corbyn for his calm evidence-seeking approach, and those who suffered a huge onslaught of vitriol and abuse for daring to ask questions about the government line, and specifically Boris Johnson's claims about what the Porton Down experts had told him.
It's absolutely clear that anyone trying to make out that the Porton Down announcement absolves Russia of blame is stretching way beyond what was actually said and should be ignored. These people are muddying the waters by misrepresenting what has been said, and distracting from the key issue, which is that the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom has been caught out in a lie.
What's more is the fact that Theresa May is simply letting Boris Johnson get away with it.
This refusal to discipline him for these false claims is yet another demonstration that Theresa May is such a weak and directionless leader that she doesn't even have the authority within her own party to sack one of her cabinet ministers, even when he's been totally exposed as a liar.
The Porton Down announcement tells us very little about Russia's involvement (which will almost certainly have to be proven by other means), but what it does tell us is that Boris Johnson is a dangerous liar who dissembles dishonestly even when it comes to crucial national security issues, and that Theresa May is such a weak leader that she's literally powerless to do anything to discipline him.
Another Angry Voice is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.
In the feverish atmosphere in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent attack there have been some absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories flying around.
In this article I'm going to attempt to give a measured perspective on the attack before detailing some of the nuttiest reactions.
The difference between questions and conspiracy theories
Like almost everyone reading this article, I don't have access to the chemical analysis that's been conducted on the nerve agent, and I don't have access to any intelligence that may have been gathered in relation to the attack.
This lack of information means that it's impossible to fly off into alternative explanations for the attack without the danger of wandering off into the tinfoil hat conspiracy zone.
However this lack of vital information doesn't prevent us from asking questions about the official position, which according to Tory ministers like Boris Johnson, involved Vladimir Putin directly ordering this hopelessly botched hit on a long-retired double agent.
The glaring problem with this theory is that it relies on the idea that Putin is some kind of idiot with no regard for consequences. Of course Putin is your archetypal strong-man tyrant with a disregard for human rights, but if you've ever actually paid attention to any of his speeches, he's clearly an intelligent man, not an idiot.
So, given that just a couple of weeks ago the Tory government pliantly did Putin's bidding by obstructing Labour's efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers to clamp down on all the Russian dark money sloshing around in the City of London, the UK housing market, and the coffers of the Tory party, why would Putin then decide to personally authorise an attack that would massively increase the chances of Magnitsky sanctions being imposed?
You can attempt to answer this kind of question in whatever way you like, but be careful you don't end up wandering off into the tinfoil hat twilight zone ...
The fireman conspiracy
The first conspiracy theory to deal with is the idea that the attack was faked because of one out-of-context photograph of firemen with no biohazard suits standing next to people with biohazard suits.
It says a lot about the kind of person you are if you can look at a single photo and deduce a convoluted conspiracy theory from it, which you then believe without giving thought to other potential explanations, like maybe the fact that people in biohazard suits need to take off their biohazard suits at some point.
Perhaps a much simpler explanation that the whole attack being an elaborate hoax, is that that's what was going on?
The evil mother-in-law
Then there's the theory that Yulia Skripal was poisoned by her future mother-in-law who supposedly doesn't want her son to marry the daughter of an ex-spy.
How the evil mother-in-law got her hands on a supply of highly toxic nerve agent isn't related in this particular conspiracy theory.
It was the CIA
If you really want to get into the kooky conspiracy shit, then UKIP is definitely a great place to turn. I mean who could forget the Ukipper "Somerset floods were caused by gay marriage" theory from a few years ago?
Well Godfrey Bloom has publicly stated his suspicion that the attack was carried out by the CIA in order to ringfence the budget for the military industrial complex.
It's interesting to see the way the hard-right UKIP mob have moved from adoration of anything American to outright hostility and conspiracy theorising against the US intelligence services ever since the Mueller investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign started getting serious.
It's all about Brexit
Another bizarre UKIP conspiracy theory is that the Salisbury attack is a false flag attack orchestrated by the British government in order to derail Brexit!
Here's what Richard Wood of UKIP told Sputnik News:
"Theresa May has been absolutely stupid because she is now in a hole over Brexit with the European Union and the EU is doing its best to keep Britain in and we want to be out. The whole point about this fiasco is that something happened and Mrs. May is now being able to point another finger at Russia and say this is our enemy. They are finding some excuse to actually blame Russia for something else so Russia becomes a big bad man again to take the pressure off Theresa May with the Brexit negotiations because she is not getting anywhere. Everybody I speak to is not on her side and not against Russia. I do think it was staged."
Trust the UKIP loons to come up with a load of batshit crazy nonsense about how it's all a conspiracy to undermine their beloved Brexit.
It's all about the UN
Another theory doing the rounds is that the Salisbury incident was a "false flag" attack designed to ramp up international pressure to get Russia thrown off the UN Security Council.
The idea that Russia could be removed from the Security Council over this incident is as impractical as it is unrealistic.
If Russia and the United States managed to stay part of the UN Security Council together throughout the theft of US nuclear weapons secrets, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Olympic boycotts, countless near misses and sanctions impositions, and all of that, how on earth is an incident like Salisbury going to register enough impact to essentially destroy the United Nations?
Even if the endgame was to get Russia thrown off the UN Security Council, how would that be achieved given that Russia has a Security Council veto, and China (another of the 5 permanent members) would obviously never let it happen either?
It's all about football
Then there's the probably the most ridiculous theory that the attack was staged to somehow undermine Russia's hosting of the FIFA World Cup, as if football is somehow the most important thing in the world.
The problem with wild conspiracy theories like this is that there's always some absolute dullard who comes along to give credence to such nonsense. In this case the right-wing Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who has started gabbing on about how the UK should somehow form a global alliance to pressurise FIFA to delay the World Cup until 2019 and ban Russia as the hosts!
If Argentina being over-run by one of the most violent and repressive military dictatorships of the late 20th Century wasn't enough to stop the World Cup in 1978, then it seems a tad unlikely that Kinnock is going to succeed with his plot to get this summer's World Cup taken off Russia.
Trust a right-wing Labour melt like Kinnock to hear the most bonkers conspiracy theory of all, think it's actually a really good idea, and then try to pass it off as his own policy!
Another Angry Voice is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.
There is nothing quite as hypocritical as the faux outrage of Tories over war crimes and human rights abuses.
In the wake of the Idlib poison gas incident Boris Johnson and many other Tories started immediately peddling the Syrian opposition narrative that the gas came from chemical weapons bombs dropped by the Syrian government. The Syrian government denied responsibility saying that the gas leak occurred when they bombed a terrorist munitions factory that had apparently been manufacturing chemical weapons.
Without an official investigation it's impossible to know which version of events is true, but that didn't stop Boris Johnson immediately adopting the evidence-free narrative that the Syrian government were to blame, and then self-righteously pushing for sanctions against Russia at the G7 as if the use of chemical weapons (even if unproven) is some kind of red line the Tory party will not tolerate.
Oh how different things were back in the 1980s when the Tories continued arming Saddam Hussain's Iraq, after the 1985 UN embargo on selling weapons to Iraq, and even after the proven use of chemical weapons in Halabja killed 5,000 people.
Back in those days Saddam was considered to be a useful British ally who fought numerous proxy wars with Iran on our behalf, so as far as the Tories were concerned, his use of chemical weapons at Halabja was perfectly excusable.
The Arms to Iraq scandal was absolutely huge in the 1990s. Four directors of the Matrix Churchill machine tooling company were put on trial for supplying equipment and knowledge to Iraq, but the trial collapsed spectacularly after it was shown that the Tory government had actually advised the company on how to sell weapons to Iraq!
After the collapse of the Matrix Churchill trial the Scott Report was commissioned, and when it came out the Tory party held a vote to totally exonerate themselves of any wrongdoing which they won by 320 votes to 319.
So the Tories advised a British company to bust UN sanctions by selling weapons to a tyrant who definitely used chemical weapons against his own people, then voted to exonerate themselves of any wrongdoing, and now they're moral high-horsing about an unproven use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
"Ah but all that was a long time ago" I can almost hear the Tory apologists whine, "move on", "forget about it", "stick to the present" ...
Well even this appeal for historical amnesia doesn't work as an excuse. On the very same day as the Idlib chemical gas incident Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia grovelling before the Islamist tyrants who rule that barbaric nation in order to convince them to continue spending £billions on British weapons, even though the parliamentary affairs select committee had openly admitted that the Saudis are using British weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen.
If we look not so far into the past we see a Tory government actively supporting a UN sanctions busting drive to sell weapons to Iraq, even though Saddam Hussain had just gassed 5,000 Kurds to death at Halabja.
If we look at the present we see a Tory government supplying £billions worth of arms export licences for Saudi Arabia, despite a parliamentary acknowledgement that the Saudis have been using British weapons to commit horrific war crimes in Yemen.
Whichever way you look at it the Tory party reeks of hypocrisy, and anyone who is aware of their past policies in Iraq, or their present policies in Saudi Arabia, surely can't pretend that such hypocrisy is acceptable.
Another Angry Voice is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.
